Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6159

determined the margin of dumping for

all manufacturers/producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise from India to

be 114.80 percent, and established an

antidumping duty deposit rate of 71.09

percent after taking into account the

43.71 percent export subsidy rate.

Therefore, we will report to the

Commission the margins from the

original investigations as contained in

the Final Results of Reviews section of

this notice.

Final Results of Reviews

As a result of these reviews, the

Department finds that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders would be

likely lead to continuation or recurrence

of dumping at the margins listed below:

India

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin

(percent)

All Manufacturers/Producers/Exporters ............. * 114.80

* (71.09 as adjusted for CVD)

China

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin

(percent)

China National Chemicals

Import & Export Corporation, Hebei Branch .......... 19.14

All Others ............................ 85.20

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 31, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2839 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–489–501]

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel

Pipe and Tube From Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

respondent, the Department of

Commerce is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded carbon steel pipe and tube from

Turkey. This review covers shipments

of this merchandise to the United States

during the period May 1, 1998, through

April 30, 1999.

We preliminarily determine that sales

have been made below normal value. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results, we will instruct the

U.S. Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties equal to the

differences between the United States

price and the normal value.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on the preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments are

requested to submit with each

argument: (1) a statement of the issue;

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Layton or Charles Riggle, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Office 5, Group II,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0371 or

(202) 482–0650, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 Department of

Commerce (the Department) regulations

are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR

Part 351 (1999).

Background

On May 15, 1986, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded carbon steel pipe and tube from

Turkey (51 FR 17784). On May 19, 1999

(64 FR 27235), we published in the

Federal Register the notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of this order

covering the period May 1, 1998,

through April 30, 1999, hereinafter

referred to as the POR. In accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on May 28,

1999, The Borusan Group (Borusan), a

producer and exporter of certain welded

carbon steel pipe and tube, requested a

review. On June 30, 1999, we published

the notice of initiation of this

antidumping duty administrative review

covering the period May 1, 1998,

through April 30, 1999 (64 FR 35124).

We are now conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

include 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 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

conditioner 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 application. All

carbon steel pipes and tubes within the

physical description outlined above are

included in the scope of this review,

except for 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.

Imports of these products are

currently classifiable under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (HTSUS)

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 HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

6160 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

We compared the export price (EP) to

the normal value (NV), as described in

the Export Price and Normal Value

sections of this notice. Because Turkey’s

economy experienced high inflation

during the POR (approximately 45

percent), as is Department practice, we

limited our comparisons to comparison

market sales made during the same

month in which the U.S. sale occurred

and did not apply our ‘‘90/60

contemporaneity rule’’ (see, e.g., Notice

of Final Results and Partial Rescission

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Pasta From Turkey, 63

FR 68429, 68430 (December 11, 1998).

This methodology minimizes the extent

to which calculated dumping margins

are overstated or understated due solely

to price inflation that occurred in the

intervening time period between the

U.S. and home market sales. We first

attempted to compare products sold in

the U.S. and home markets that were

identical with respect to the following

characteristics: grade, diameter, wall

thickness, finish, and end finish.

However, given that there were no

contemporaneous sales of identical

merchandise, we compared U.S.

products with the most similar

merchandise sold in the home market

based on the characteristics listed

above, in that order of priority.

Export Price

Because Borusan sold subject

merchandise directly to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation, and

constructed export price methodology

was not otherwise warranted based on

the record facts of this review, in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, we used EP as the basis for all of

Borusan’s sales.

We calculated EP as the packed,

delivered price to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. In

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of

the Act, we made deductions from the

starting price (gross unit price), where

appropriate, for foreign inland freight,

foreign inland insurance, international

freight and other related charges. In

addition, we added countervailing

duties and duty drawback.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared

Borusan’s volume of home market sales

of the foreign like product to the volume

of its U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because

Borusan’s aggregate volume of home

market sales of the foreign like product

was greater than five percent of its

aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market was viable. We

calculated NV as noted in the ‘‘Price to

Price Comparisons’’ section of this

notice.

Cost of Production Analysis

Because the Department disregarded

sales below the cost of production (COP)

in the last completed review of Borusan,

we had reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect that sales of the foreign product

under consideration for the

determination of NV in this review may

have been made at prices below the COP

as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section

773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP

investigation of sales by Borusan in the

home market. (See Notice of Final

Results and Partial Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes From Turkey (Final

Results), 63 FR 35190 (June 29, 1998)).

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated the COP based

on the sum of Borusan’s costs of

materials and fabrication employed in

producing the foreign like product, plus

selling, general, and administrative

expenses (SG&A) and the cost of all

expenses incidental to placing the

foreign like product in condition packed

ready for shipment.

In order to avoid the distortive effect

of inflation on our comparison of costs

and prices, we requested that Borusan

submit monthly production costs

incurred during each month of the POR.

We calculated a POR-average cost for

each product after indexing the reported

monthly costs of manufacturing (COM)

during the POR to an equivalent

currency level using the wholesale price

index for Turkey from the International

Financial Statistics, published by the

International Monetary Fund. We then

restated the POR-average COM to the

currency level of each month and

calculated monthly COP and

constructed value (CV) for each product.

We relied on Borusan’s submitted costs

to calculate COP and CV. To obtain a

Borusan Group general and

administrative (G&A) expense factor, we

used the company-wide cost

information from Borusan’s three pipe

and tube manufacturing companies. We

applied the G&A and interest expense

rates to the COM plus packing because

the denominator used to compute the

rates included packing.

The respondent provided information

in the response showing that one of the

Borusan mills, Kartal Boru, received coil

and zinc inputs from affiliated parties.

We consider coil and zinc to be major

inputs and therefore we have applied

the major input rule to value such

purchases (see Notice of Final Results

and Partial Recission of Antidumping

Review: Certain Pasta from Italy, 64 FR

6615, 6621 (February 10, 1999)). The

major input rule of section 773(f)(3),

together with section 772(f)(2) of the

Act, provides that the Department may

value inputs obtained from affiliated

parties at the highest of the transfer

price, the market price or the affiliated

supplier’s costs. See 16 CFR Section

351.407(b). However, some of the inputs

in this review were purchased from an

affiliated mill that was collapsed with

Borusan for purposes of this and

previous reviews. With respect to those

inputs (i.e., inputs from a collapsed

entity), we do not apply the major input

rule. Rather, in those instances, we

value the purchases based upon the cost

of producing the input. See e.g., AK

Steel Corp. v. United States, 34 F Supp.

2d 75b(CIT 1998) (affirming the

Department’s determination not to

apply the major input rule to

transactions between collapsed entities).

Therefore, for major input purchases

of coil from the affiliated party not

collapsed with Borusan, we have

utilized the highest of: (1) The cost of

producing the input; (2) the transfer

price; or (3) the market price. In

contrast, we have valued major input

purchases of coil and zinc from the

collapsed entity at the cost to the

affiliated provider. See Preliminary

Results Analysis Memorandum, dated

January 31, 2000, on file in the Central

Records Unit (room B–099 of the main

Commerce Department Building).

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We compared the indexed weightedaverage COP figures to home market

sales of the foreign like product as

called for by section 773(b) of the Act,

in order to determine whether these

sales had been made at prices below the

COP. On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to the home market

prices, less any applicable movement

charges, rebates and direct selling

expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of

the Act, where less than 20 percent of

a respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than the COP, we do

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6161

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 respondent’s sales

of a given product are at prices less than

the COP, we disregard the below-cost

sales because they (1) were made over

an extended period of time in

substantial quantities in accordance

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the

Act, and (2) based on comparisons of

prices to weighted-average COPs for the

POR, were at prices which would not

permit the recovery of all costs within

a reasonable period of time in

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

the Act.

We found that, for certain products,

more than 20 percent of Borusan’s home

market sales were sold at below the

COP. Further, we did not find that the

prices for these sales provided for the

recovery of costs within a reasonable

period of time. We therefore excluded

these sales from our analysis and used

the remaining above-cost sales as the

basis for determining NV, in accordance

with section 773(b)(1).

Price to Price Comparisons

For those comparison products for

which there were sales at prices above

the COP, we based NV on home market

prices. In these preliminary results, we

were able to match all U.S. sales to

contemporaneous sales of a similar

foreign like product made in the

ordinary course of trade, based on

matching characteristics. We calculated

NV based on FOB mill/warehouse or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

customers, or prices to affiliated

customers which were determined to be

at arm’s length (see discussion below

regarding these sales). We made

deductions, where appropriate, from the

starting price for inland freight, pre-sale

warehouse expense, discounts, and

rebates. Additionally, we added late

payment charges. In accordance with

section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we

deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs.

In accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we adjusted

for differences in the circumstances of

sale. These circumstances included

differences in imputed credit expenses.

We also made adjustments, where

appropriate, for physical differences in

the merchandise in accordance with

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

calculated POR-average variable and

total COMs, by product, after indexing

the reported monthly costs using the

wholesale price index for Turkey. We

then restated the average variable and

total COMs to the currency level of each

respective month.

Arm’s-Length Sales

We included in our analysis

Borusan’s home market sales to

affiliated customers only where we

determined that such sales were made at

arm’s-length prices, i.e., at prices

comparable to prices at which Borusan

sold identical merchandise to unrelated

customers. See section 773(a)(1)(B) of

the Act. In order to determine the arm’slength nature of Borusan’s home market

sales to affiliated customers we

compared the gross unit prices of sales

to affiliated and unaffiliated customers

net of all movement charges, direct and

indirect selling expenses, and packing

(see Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value; Certain Cold-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products from

Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9,

1993)).

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, at 829–831 (see H.R.

Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 829–

831 (1994)), to the extent practicable,

the Department calculates NV based on

sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as

the U.S. sales (either EP or Constructed

Export Price). When the Department is

unable to find sale(s) in the comparison

market at the same LOT as the U.S.

sale(s), the Department may compare

sales in the U.S. and foreign markets at

different LOTs. The NV LOT is that of

the starting-price sales in the home

market. To determine whether home

market sales are at a different LOT than

U.S. sales, 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

differences affect price comparability, as

manifested in a pattern of consistent

price differences between the sales on

which NV is based and comparisonmarket sales at the LOT of the export

transaction, we make an LOT

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of

the Tariff Act. 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 implementing these principles in

this review, we examined information

from the respondent regarding the

marketing stages involved in the

reported home market and EP sales,

including a description of the selling

activities performed by Borusan for each

channel of distribution. Consistent with

the prior review of this respondent (POR

96–97), we determined that with respect

to Borusan’s sales, there were two home

market LOTs and one U.S. LOT (i.e., the

EP LOT). See Final Results, 63 FR

35190, 35193.

Where possible, we compared sales at

the U.S. LOT to sales at the identical

home market LOT. If no match was

available at the same LOT, we compared

sales at the U.S. LOT to sales at the

second home market LOT.

To determine whether a LOT

adjustment was warranted, we

examined, on a monthly basis, the

prices of comparable product categories,

net of all adjustments, between sales at

the two home market LOTs we had

designated. We found a pattern of

consistent price differences between

sales at these LOTs.

In making the LOT adjustment, we

calculated the difference in weightedaverage prices between the two different

home market LOTs. Where U.S. sales

were compared to home market sales at

a different LOT, we reduced the home

market price by the amount of this

calculated difference.

Currency Conversion

The Department’s preferred source for

daily exchange rates is the Federal

Reserve Bank. However, the Federal

Reserve Bank does not track or publish

exchange rates for the Turkish lira.

Therefore, we made currency

conversions based on the daily

exchange rates from the Dow Jones

Business Information Services.

Section 773A(a) 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.’’ It is the

Department’s practice to find that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark

rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark

rate is defined as the rolling average of

the rates for the past 40 business days.

When we determine a fluctuation to

have existed, we generally utilize the

benchmark rate instead of the daily rate,

in accordance with established practice.

When the rate of domestic price

inflation is significant, as it is in this

case, it is important that we use as a

basis for NV home market prices that are

as contemporaneous as possible with

the date of the U.S. sale. This is to

minimize the extent to which calculated

dumping margins are overstated or

understated due solely to price inflation

that occurred in the intervening time

period between the U.S. and the home

market sales. For this reason, as

6162 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

discussed above, we are comparing

home market and U.S. sales in the same

month. For the same reason, we have

used the daily exchange rates for

currency conversion purposes. See, e.g.,

Certain Porcelain on Steel Cookware

From Mexico: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 42496, 42503 (August 7,

1997) and Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Certain Pasta From Turkey, 61 FR 30309

(June 14, 1996).

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Borusan ...................................... 0.48

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the

Department will disclose to parties to

the proceeding within five (5) days after

the date of publication of this notice any

calculations performed in connection

with these preliminary results.

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 10 days of the date of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication, or the first workday

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs within 30 days of the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to

issues raised in the case briefs, may be

filed not later than 37 days after the date

of publication. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments.

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)(1), we have calculated

importer-specific assessment rates by

dividing the dumping margin found on

the subject merchandise examined by

the entered value of such merchandise.

Upon completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon publication

of the final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of pipe and

tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date, as provided

by section 752(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for Borusan will

be the rate established in the final

results of this review, except if the rate

is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore,

de minimis within the meaning of

section 733(b)(3) of the Act, the cash

deposit will be zero; (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

this review, a prior review, or the

original less-than-fair-value (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 14.74 percent, the

‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These cash deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f)(2) 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 section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2846 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–580–818]

Cold Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Plate From the Republic

of Korea: Rescission of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Rescission of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On September 24, 1999, in

response to a request from petitioner

and respondents, the Department of

Commerce initiated an administrative

review of the countervailing duty order

on cold rolled and corrosion-resistant

carbon steel plate from the Republic of

Korea. The review covers the period

January 1, 1998 through December 31,

1998. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(d)(1), the Department is now

rescinding this review because the

petitioner and respondents have

withdrawn their requests for review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

B. Greynolds or Tipten Troidl, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Group II, Office VI, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

31, 1999, the Department received

requests for an administrative review of

the countervailing duty order on cold

rolled and corrosion-resistant carbon

steel plate from the Republic of Korea

from Weirton Steel Corporation

(petitioner) and Pohang Iron & Steel Co.,

Ltd., Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., and Union

Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

(respondents), for the period January 1,

1998 through December 31, 1998. On

October 1, 1999, the Department

published in the Federal Register (64

FR 53318) a notice of ‘‘Initiation of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review’’ initiating the administrative

review. On January 4, 2000, petitioner

withdrew its request for review. On

January 6, 2000, respondents withdrew

their request for review.

The applicable regulation, 19 CFR

351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that

requested an administrative review

withdraws the request within 90 days of

the date of publication of the notice of

initiation of the requested review, the

Secretary will rescind the review. In this

case, the parties to the proceeding did

not withdraw their requests within the

90 day period. However, our regulations

state that the Secretary may extend the

time limit if the Secretary decides that

it is reasonable to do so. Since both

parties have requested to withdraw and

because their requests were made

shortly after the 90 day period, we find

it reasonable to accept parties’

withdrawals of their requests for review.

No other interested party requested a

review, and we have received no other

submissions regarding parties’

withdrawals of their requests for review.

Therefore, we are rescinding this review

of the countervailing duty order on cold