[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76218-76223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31105]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-809]


Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea; 
Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping 
Administrative Review

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

[[Page 76219]]


ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and partial rescission of 
antidumping duty administrative review of circular welded non-alloy 
steel pipe from the Republic of Korea.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel 
pipe from the Republic of Korea. The period of review is November 1, 
1998 through October 31, 1999. This review covers imports of subject 
merchandise from three producers/exporters.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales of subject merchandise 
have been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results, we will instruct the United States 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference 
between the U.S. price and normal value.
    We have also determined that the reviews of Dongbu and Union should 
be rescinded.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jarrod Goldfeder or John Brinkmann, 
AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 1, Group I, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0189 and 482-4126, 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 the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (April 1999).

Background

    On November 16, 1999, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a Notice of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 
or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, for the period November 1, 1998 through October 31, 1999 (64 FR 
62167).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), the following producers 
and/or exporters of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe (standard 
pipe) from the Republic of Korea requested an administrative review of 
their sales on November 30, 1999: SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) and 
Hyundai Pipe Company, Ltd. (Hyundai). Also on November 30, 1999, Allied 
Tube and Conduit Corporation, Sawhill Tubular Division-Armco, Inc., and 
Wheatland Tube Company (collectively, the petitioners) requested 
reviews of Dongbu Steel Company, Ltd. (Dongbu), Hyundai, Korea Iron and 
Steel Company, Ltd. (KISCO), Shinho Steel Company, Ltd. (Shinho) and 
Union Steel Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (Union). On December 28, 1999, 
we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review for Dongbu, Hyundai, KISCO, SeAH, Shinho, and 
Union (collectively, the respondents). See Initiation of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 72644 (Initiation 
Notice).
    On January 13, 2000, we issued questionnaires to the respondents. 
Because the Department disregarded sales that failed the cost test 
during the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which 
each company participated, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Act, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by 
these companies of the foreign like product under consideration for the 
determination of normal value (NV) in this review were made at prices 
below the cost of production (COP). Therefore, we initiated cost 
investigations of the respondents at the time we initiated the 
antidumping review.
    Union made a submission on January 18, 2000, certifying that it did 
not make exports to or sales in the United States of subject 
merchandise manufactured or produced by itself during the period of 
review (POR). In its submission, Union elaborated that in 1997 it had 
sold its manufacturing facilities and relinquished its business 
licenses with respect to the subject merchandise, citing material it 
had submitted in the 1997/98 review of this order. As part of a July 6, 
2000 submission, Union placed on the record of this proceeding 
information from the 1997/98 review.
    On February 1, 2000, Dongbu also submitted a certification that it 
did not make exports to or sales in the United States of subject 
merchandise manufactured or produced by itself during the POR. However, 
a review of Customs Service entries during the POR revealed a number of 
entries listing Dongbu as the manufacturer. In response, Dongbu made a 
submission on June 30, 2000, showing that an erroneous manufacturer 
identification code was used for those entries by the importer of 
record.
    On February 15, 2000, Hyundai requested that it be excused from 
reporting resales of subject merchandise that were produced by 
unaffiliated manufacturers and not further manufactured by Hyundai. The 
petitioners commented on Hyundai's request on February 16, 2000. On 
February 22, 2000, we issued a memorandum instructing respondents to 
report only those resales of merchandise that were further processed. 
See the Memorandum to the File, ``Extension of Due Dates for 
Questionnaire Responses, Reporting of Cost Data on Fiscal-year Basis, 
Reporting of Resales'' (Reporting Memorandum).
    On February 11, 2000, Hyundai requested that it be allowed to 
report its cost data on a fiscal-year basis. On February 15, 2000, 
similar requests were received from KISCO, SeAH, and Shinho. On 
February 16, 2000, the petitioners commented on the respondents' 
requests for fiscal-year reporting of costs. On February 22, 2000, we 
requested that the respondents demonstrate that the use of fiscal-year 
cost reporting would not be distortive. Between February 28 and March 
10, 2000, we received information and comments from the petitioners and 
the respondents on the difference between fiscal-year and POR-based 
cost reporting.
    After requesting extensions for the submission of their responses 
to the questionnaire and receiving the same, Hyundai, KISCO, SeAH and 
Shinho submitted their section A through D responses by March 24, 2000. 
The petitioners submitted comments on the questionnaire responses in 
April 2000. We issued supplemental questionnaires covering sections A 
through D to the respondents by June 14, 2000, and received responses 
by July 5, 2000.
    The petitioners withdrew their request for review with respect to 
KISCO on June 15, 2000. On July 11, 2000, the Department rescinded the 
review with respect to KISCO and extended the time limit for the 
preliminary results to October 6, 2000. See Circular Welded Non-Alloy 
Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea; Notice of Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 44521 (July 18, 2000).
    On September 14, 2000, the petitioners submitted comments to the 
Department addressing several issues in

[[Page 76220]]

anticipation of these preliminary results.
    On October 2, 2000, we extended the time limits for the preliminary 
results by an additional twenty-eight days, or until no later than 
November 3, 2000. See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the 
Republic of Korea: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 59823 (October 6, 2000). On 
October 31, 2000, we fully extended the time limits for the preliminary 
results until no later than November 29, 2000. See Circular Welded Non-
Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 
66523 (November 6, 2000).

Rescission of Review in Part

    As stated above in the ``Case History'' section of this notice, 
Dongbu certified that it did not make sales or exports of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. To confirm the same, 
we reviewed Customs Service data which revealed a number of entries 
listing Dongbu as the manufacturer. In response, Dongbu submitted 
documentation on June 30, 2000, showing that these entries contained 
the wrong manufacturer designation. On September 15, 2000, Dongbu 
informed the Department that the Customs Service data did not need to 
be corrected because although the wrong manufacturer designation was 
listed, the correct dumping deposit rate was paid on all the sales 
listed on the Customs documentation for the period. We confirmed the 
information provided by Dongbu. See Memorandum to the File, 
``Confirmation of Customs Data Concerning Dongbu,'' dated November 29, 
2000. Furthermore, we find that Union placed sufficient evidence on the 
record of this review demonstrating that it did not make exports to or 
sales in the United States of subject merchandise manufactured or 
produced by itself during the period of review. Accordingly, we are 
rescinding this review with respect to Dongbu and Union.

Scope of Review

    The merchandise subject to this review is circular welded non-alloy 
steel pipe and tube, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4mm 
(16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface 
finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, 
beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes 
are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and are intended for 
the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, 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 
applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing 
used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-
bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm 
equipment, and other related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is 
also included in this order.
    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, mechanical tubing, pipe 
and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished 
conduit. In accordance with the Department's Final Negative 
Determination of Scope Inquiry on Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 
Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and 
Venezuela (61 FR 11608, March 21, 1996), pipe certified to the API 5L 
line-pipe specification and pipe certified to both the API 5L line-pipe 
specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard-pipe 
specifications, which falls within the physical parameters as outlined 
above, and entered as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas 
pipelines is outside of the scope of the antidumping duty order.
    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 
Service purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted 
to match contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States 
with identical merchandise sold in Korea. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market to compare with U.S. sales, we 
compared U.S. sales with the most similar foreign like product.
    For purposes of the preliminary results, where appropriate, we have 
calculated the adjustment for differences in merchandise based on the 
difference in the variable cost of manufacturing (variable COM) between 
each U.S. model and the most similar home market model selected for 
comparison.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of standard pipe from Korea were made in 
the United States at less than fair value, we compared the export price 
(EP) or constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the 
``Export Price and Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the 
Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared 
these to individual U.S. transactions.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For sales to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP 
in accordance with sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act. We calculated 
EP where the merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and CEP was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We calculated CEP for 
sales made by affiliated U.S. resellers that took place after 
importation into the United States.
    We based EP and CEP on the packed C&F, CIF duty paid, FOB, or ex-
dock duty paid prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in, or for 
exportation to, the United States. Where appropriate, we made 
deductions for discounts and rebates, including early payment 
discounts. We added to U.S. price amounts for duty drawback, pursuant 
to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent that such rebates 
were not excessive. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review: 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR 
55574 (October 27, 1997) (Pipe First Review). We also made deductions 
for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act, including: foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, 
ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. wharfage, U.S. customs brokerage, 
and U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance and merchandise 
processing fees).
    For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States, including 
commissions, credit costs, warranty expenses, and indirect selling 
expenses, where applicable. We made adjustments for interest revenue

[[Page 76221]]

collected on late payments, where applicable. We also deducted from CEP 
an amount for profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of 
the Act.
    Consistent with the preceding review, we determined that although 
for home market transactions the invoice date reasonably approximates 
the date on which material terms of sale are made, invoice date should 
not be used as the date of sale for U.S. transactions. While each 
company has a slightly different U.S. sales process, consistent 
throughout the responses is the notion that price and quantity are 
established, then the factory produces the subject merchandise, and 
finally, after a significant period of time, the product is shipped and 
an invoice issued. Based on this understanding of the respondents' U.S. 
sales process, we have used as date of sale the purchase order date, 
which reasonably approximates the time at which the material terms of 
sale are set.
    Pursuant to sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, we reclassified 
Hyundai's reported EP sales as CEP sales since the agreement for sale 
occurred in the United States between Hyundai Pipe America and Hyundai 
Corporation USA, Hyundai's U.S. affiliates, and the unaffiliated 
customers. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, ``Classification of Sales 
by Hyundai Pipe Co., Ltd as EP or CEP,'' dated November 27, 2000.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    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 each respondent's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, 
because each respondent'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 for all producers.
    Hyundai and SeAH reported sales in the home market of ``overrun'' 
merchandise (i.e., sales of a greater quantity of pipe than the 
customer ordered due to overproduction). Hyundai and SeAH claimed that 
we should disregard ``overrun'' sales in the home market as outside the 
ordinary course of trade.
    Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act provides that normal value shall be 
based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the 
usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. 
Ordinary course of trade is defined in section 771(15) of the Act. We 
analyzed the following criteria to determine whether ``overrun'' sales 
differ from other sales of commercial pipe: (1) Ratio of overrun sales 
to total home market sales; (2) number of overrun customers compared to 
total number of home market customers; (3) average price of an overrun 
sale compared to average price of a commercial sale; (4) profitability 
of overrun sales compared to profitability of commercial sales; and (5) 
average quantity of an overrun sale compared to the average quantity of 
a commercial sale. Based on our analysis of these criteria and on an 
analysis of the terms of sale, we found certain overrun sales to be 
outside the ordinary course of trade. This analysis is consistent with 
our treatment of such sales in prior reviews. See Memoranda from Team 
to the File, ``Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai 
Pipe Co., Ltd.. (`HDP')'' and ``Preliminary Results Calculation 
Memorandum for SeAH Steel Corporation (`SeAH'),'' dated November 29, 
2000.

B. Arm's Length Test

    Hyundai and SeAH had sales in the home market to affiliated 
customers. 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(c) 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 e.g., Notice of Final 
Results and Partial Rescission 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.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded sales below the COP in the last completed 
review for Hyundai, SeAH, and Shinho (see Circular Welded Non-Alloy 
Steel Pipe from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 32833, June 16, 1998 (Pipe Fourth Review)), we had 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign 
product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review 
for all respondents 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 sales-below-cost 
investigation of these companies' home market sales.
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.
1. Calculation of COP
    Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis, 
pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the 
respondents' comparison market sales were made below the COP. We 
calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and 
administrative expenses and packing, in accordance with section 
773(b)(3) of the Act.
    We allowed respondents to report their costs on a fiscal-year basis 
because their fiscal years were closely aligned with the POR (November-
October POR vs. January-December fiscal year), the differences in costs 
were minimal, and there was no other indication that the use of fiscal-
year data would be distortive. See Reporting Memorandum.
    We relied on the respondents' information as submitted, except in 
the specific instances discussed below.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    As required under section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the 
weighted-average COP to the per unit price of the comparison market 
sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales had 
been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by 
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing 
expenses.
3. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product

[[Page 76222]]

were made at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-
cost sales of that product because we determined 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 during the 12-month 
period were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to 
have been made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period 
of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. In 
such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also 
determined that such below-cost sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    We found that Hyundai, SeAH, and Shinho all made home market sales 
at below COP prices within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities. Further, we found that these sales prices did not permit 
for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. 
Therefore, we excluded these sales from our analysis and used the 
remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on ex-works, FOB, or delivered prices to 
comparison market customers. We made deductions from the starting price 
for inland freight and warehousing. In accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we added U.S. packing costs and 
deducted comparison market packing, respectively. In addition, we made 
circumstance of sale (COS) adjustments for direct expenses, including 
imputed credit expenses and warranty expenses, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
    When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, 
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this 
adjustment on the difference in the variable COM for the foreign like 
product and subject merchandise, using POR-average costs.
    We also made adjustments, where applicable, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on home market 
or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but 
not in the other (the commission offset). Specifically, where 
commissions are incurred in one market, but not in the other, we make 
an allowance for the indirect selling expenses in the other market up 
to the amount of the commissions.
    During the POR, SeAH purchased the foreign like product from 
unaffiliated manufacturers and then further manufactured it into 
products also within the scope of this review. For purposes of these 
preliminary results, we have included sales of all such further-
manufactured subject merchandise in our analysis.

E. Level of Trade (LOT)

    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and in the 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA at 829-
831, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based 
on sales at the same LOT as the EP or CEP. When the Department is 
unable to find sales of the foreign like product in the comparison 
market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the 
U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market.
    We determine that sales are made at different levels of trade if 
they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). 
Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not 
sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the 
stages of marketing. 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); see also 19 CFR 351.412 (62 FR 
27296, 27414-27415 (May 19, 1997)) for a concise description of this 
practice. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and the SAA at 
827, in identifying levels of trade for EP and home market sales we 
consider the selling functions reflected in the starting prices before 
any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities 
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under 
section 772(d) of the Act.\1\ We expect that, if claimed levels of 
trade are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should 
be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels of trade are 
different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities 
of the seller should be dissimilar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has held that 
the Department's practice of determining LOT 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 March 26, 1998) (Borden II). 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 
II 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 
appealed Borden II to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 
Consequently, the Department has continued to follow its normal 
practice of adjusting CEP under section 772(d) of the Act prior to 
starting a LOT analysis, as articulated in the Department's 
regulations at section 351.412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When CEP sales have been made in the United States, section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes that a CEP offset may be granted 
provided that two conditions exist: (1) NV is established at a LOT that 
is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP; 
and (2) the data available do not permit a determination that there is 
a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different 
LOTs in the comparison market.
    In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained 
information from each respondent regarding the marketing stage involved 
in the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of 
the selling activities performed by the respondents for each channel of 
distribution. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a 
summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, 
see the November 29, 2000, ``Antidumping Administrative Review of 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: 
Preliminary Level of Trade Analysis''' memorandum, on file in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU). The company-specific LOT analysis is 
included in the business proprietary analysis memorandum for each 
company.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the 
official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve. Section 
773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate 
in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the 
daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with the 
Department's practice, we have determined as a general matter that a 
fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a 
benchmark by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as the rolling 
average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine that 
a fluctuation exists, we substitute the benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period 
November 1, 1998, through October 31, 1999:

[[Page 76223]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai....................................................         3.77
Shinho.....................................................         1.38
SeAH.......................................................         0.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. An interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary 
results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 
44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, which must 
be limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no 
later than 37 days after the date of publication. Parties who submit 
arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of 
the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a table of 
authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting 
written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy 
of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department 
will issue a notice of the final results of this administrative review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rate

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon 
issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any 
importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are 
above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service to 
assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the 
assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment 
purposes, we calculate importer-specific assessment rates for the 
subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. 
sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered 
value of the sales to that importer.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash-deposit rate for each producer and/or 
exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total 
dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that 
company's sales during the review period.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of standard pipe from Korea entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
companies will be the rates established in the final results of this 
administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, 
therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for 
merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this 
review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation 
or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the most 
recent rate published in the final determination or final results for 
which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous review, 
or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period 
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous 
reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 4.80 percent, the ``all others'' 
rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. See Notice 
of Antidumping Orders: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe 
from Brazil, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela, and 
Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453 
(November 2, 1992).
    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this administrative review in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 29, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-31105 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P