17590 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Notices

contracts submitted by market

participants. The Department then

calculated a simple average of the UPIS

U.S. Base Price and the long-term price

as determined by the Department.

Weighting

The Department used the average spot

and long-term volumes of U.S. utility

and domestic supplier purchases, as

reported by the Energy Information

Administration (EIA), to weight the spot

and long-term components of the

observed price. We have continued to

use data which reflects the period from

1992–1995, as no more recent data is

available. During this period, the spot

market accounted for 73.74 percent of

total purchases, and the long-term

market for 26.26 percent. As in previous

determinations, the Department used

the Energy Information Administration’s

(EIA) Uranium Industry Annual to

determine the available average spotand long-term volumes of U.S. utility

purchases. We have continued to use

data which reflects the period 1992

through 1995. The EIA has withheld

certain contracting data from the public

versions of the Uranium Industry

Annual 1993, Uranium Industry Annual

1994, and the Uranium Industry Annual

1995 (the most recent edition) because

this data was business proprietary. The

EIA, however, provided this data to the

Department and the Department has

used it to update its weighting

calculation. Accordingly, it may only be

released under Administrative

Protective Order.

Calculation Announcement

The Department determined, using

the methodology and information

described above, that the observed

market price is $15.34. This reflects an

average spot market price of $14.97,

weighted at 73.74 percent, and an

average long-term contract price of

$16.38, weighted at 26.26 percent. The

decrease in the observed market price

from our preliminary determination

reflects the correction of clerical errors,

as discussed below, and our inclusion

in the calculation of one other contract

that was received after our preliminary

price calculation. Since this price is

between $15.00/lb and $15.99/lb

expressed in Appendix A of the

suspension agreement with Kazakstan,

as amended, Kazakstan receives a quota

of 700,000 lbs for the period April 1,

1997, to September 30, 1997. The

suspension agreement with Uzbekistan,

as amended, specifies that Uzbekistan

shall have access to its Appendix A

quota of 940,000 lbs for the period of

October 13, 1996 to October 12, 1997,

provided that the calculated price is at

or above $12.00 per pound.

Comments

Consistent with the February 22,

1993, letter of interpretation, the

Department provided interested parties

the preliminary price determination for

this period on March 12, 1997. One

interested party submitted comments.

UPIS Index Used

Comment 1: The Ad Hoc Committee

of Domestic Uranium Producers (the

producers) request that the Department

correct a minor data error in its spot

price segment of the calculation.

According to the producers, the

Department inadvertently used the UPIS

Short-Term Price Indicator data rather

than the UPIS Spot Price Indicator data,

which is consistent with previous

calculations.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with the producers

and has corrected the data error.

Long-Term UPIS Indicators

Comment 2: The producers claimed

that the Department erred in its

calculation of the simple average of the

long-term UPIS indicators.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with the producers

and has corrected the clerical error in

question.

Long-Term Contract

Comment 3: The producers request

that the Department carefully review its

calculation of the price for contract #2

because the reported price is higher

than prices seen in the UPIS indicator

and other similar transactions. The

producers request the Department to

review the terms of the contract to

determine whether the contract is a

renegotiated contract, whether the

transaction was part of or related to

another transaction which was not

reported, and whether the reported

contract is between related parties. The

Department was also asked to verify

whether an appropriate deflator has

been used in reporting prices with

respect to this particular transaction.

Department’s Position: In response to

the producers’ comments, the

Department contacted the respondent

and confirmed that the survey response

contained accurate information, that the

contract in question was not a

renegotiated contract, was not part of or

related to another transaction, did not

involve related parties, and that an

industry standard deflater was used.

Therefore, the Department continues to

use price-related information regarding

contract #2 in its long-term price

determination.

Finally, the Department corrected a

clerical error regarding a delivery year

in its calculation of the long-term price

for contract #3. The Department notes

that its response to the producer’s third

comment applies to this contract as

well.

After the analysis of the above

comments, the Department has

determined that the observed market

price for uranium, effective April 1,

1997, is $15.34/lb.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping

Countervailing Duty—Group III.

[FR Doc. 97–9259 Filed 4–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–549–502]

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes

and Tubes From Thailand: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review; Certain welded carbon steel

pipes and tubes from Thailand.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by

Thai Union Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Thai

Union’’), Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Saha Thai’’) and its affiliated exporter,

S.A.F. Pipe Export Co., Ltd., (‘‘SAF’’),

respondents, and two importers, Ferro

Union Inc. (‘‘Ferro Union’’), and

ASOMA Corp. (‘‘ASOMA’’), the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded carbon steel pipes and tubes

from Thailand. This review covers the

following manufacturers/exporters of

the subject merchandise to the United

States: Saha Thai/SAF and Thai Union.

The period of review (POR) is March 1,

1995 through February 29, 1996.

We have preliminarily determined

that respondents sold subject

merchandise at less than normal value

(NV) during the POR. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results, we will instruct U.S.

Customs to assess antidumping duties

equal to the differences between the

export price and NV.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Notices 17591

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding should also submit with the

argument (1) a statement of the issue,

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Totaro or Dorothy Woster, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III, Office VII,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3362 or

(202) 482–1398, respectively.

APPLICABLE STATUTE: 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 (hereinafter, ‘‘the Act’’) by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 11, 1986, the Department

published in the Federal Register an

antidumping duty order on welded

carbon steel pipes and tubes from

Thailand (51 FR 8341). On March 4,

1996, the Department published a notice

of opportunity to request an

administrative review of this order

covering the period March 1, 1995

through February 29, 1996 (61 FR 8238).

Timely requests for an administrative

review of the antidumping order with

respect to sales by Saha Thai/SAF and

Thai Union during the POR were filed

by Thai Union, and jointly by Saha

Thai, SAF, Ferro Union, and ASOMA.

The Department published a notice of

initiation of this antidumping duty

administrative review on April 25, 1996

(61 FR 18378).

On May 14, 1996, Saha Thai, SAF,

Ferro Union, and ASOMA sought to

withdraw their request for review and

requested that the Department terminate

the review with respect to sales by Saha

Thai/SAF during the POR. The domestic

interested parties, Allied Tube &

Conduit Corporation, Laclede Steel

Company, Sawhill Tubular Division of

Armco, Inc., and Wheatland Tube

Company, (‘‘petitioners’’), objected to

partial termination of the review on the

grounds that, on March 29, 1996, they

had submitted to the Department a

timely request for review of sales by

these companies and served Saha Thai

with a copy of this request. Although

there is no official record of petitioners’

request, given the remedial nature of the

antidumping law and the fact that Saha

Thai received notice of petitioners’

request, the Department elected to

continue the ongoing review of these

sales. See Memorandum to Robert S.

LaRussa from Stephen J. Powell, July 11,

1996.

On May 24, 1996, the petitioners

requested that the Department verify the

responses of both Saha Thai and Thai

Union.

Because the Department determined

that it was not practicable to complete

this review within statutory time limits,

on November 1, 1996, we published in

the Federal Register our notice of

extension of time limits for this review

(61 FR 56512). As a result, we extended

the deadline for these preliminary

results. The deadline for the final results

will continue to be 120 days after

publication of these preliminary results.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this

administrative review are certain

welded carbon steel pipes and tubes

from Thailand. The subject merchandise

has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches

or more, but not exceeding 16 inches.

These products, which are commonly

referred to in the industry as ‘‘standard

pipe’’ or ‘‘structural tubing,’’ are

hereinafter designated as ‘‘pipe and

tube.’’ The merchandise is classifiable

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item numbers 7306.30.1000,

7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032,

7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055,

7306.30.5085 and 7306.30.5090.

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of the order is dispositive. This

review covers sales by Saha Thai/SAF

and Thai Union, during the period

March 1, 1995 through February 29,

1996. In addition, based on our analysis,

we have found that Thai Tube Co. Ltd.

(‘‘Thai Tube’’), a producer of subject

merchandise, for which we did not

initiate an administrative review, is

affiliated to Saha Thai.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by the respondents, Saha Thai and Thai

Union, using standard verification

procedures, including onsite inspection

of the manufacturers’ facilities,

examination of relevant financial

records, and analysis of original

documentation used by Saha Thai and

Thai Union to prepare responses to

requests for information from the

Department. Our verification results are

outlined in the public versions of the

verification reports (Memorandum to

Roland L. MacDonald from Theresa L.

Caherty, John B. Totaro and Dorothy A.

Woster, March 31, 1997 (‘‘Saha Thai

Verification Report’’), Memorandum to

Roland L. MacDonald from Theresa L.

Caherty, John B. Totaro and Dorothy A.

Woster, March 31, 1997 (‘‘Thai Union

Verification Report’’), and

Memorandum to the File from Steven

Presing, January 30, 1997).

Duty Absorption

On May 24, 1996, the petitioners

requested a duty absorption review of

Saha Thai/SAF and Thai Union

pursuant to section 751(a)(4) of the Act.

Section 751(a)(4) requires the

Department, if requested, to determine

during an administrative review

initiated two years or four years after

publication of the order, whether

antidumping duties have been absorbed

by a foreign producer or exporter subject

to the order, if the subject merchandise

is sold in the United States through an

importer who is affiliated with such

foreign producer or exporter. For

transition orders as defined in section

751(c)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act, i.e., orders

in effect as of January 1, 1995, section

351.213(j)(2) of the Department’s

proposed antidumping regulations

provide that the Department will make

a duty absorption determination, if

requested, for any administrative review

initiated in 1996 or 1998. See Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, 61 FR 7308, 7366

(February 27, 1996).

Because the order on certain welded

carbon steel pipes and tubes from

Thailand has been in effect since 1986,

this qualifies as a transition order.

Therefore, the Department will first

consider a request for an absorption

determination during a review initiated

in 1996. This being a review initiated in

1996, the Department considered the

petitioners’ request.

The statute provides for a

determination on duty absorption if the

subject merchandise is sold in the

United States through an affiliated

importer. In the previous administrative

review of sales by Saha Thai/SAF, we

determined that Saha Thai/SAF was not

affiliated with its two U.S. distributors.

See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes

and Tubes From Thailand: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 21159

(May 9, 1996); Certain Welded Carbon

Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand:

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 56515
17592 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Notices

(Nov. 1, 1996). Because we find no

evidence on the record of this review to

change this previous determination we

do not consider Saha Thai/SAF to be

affiliated with any U.S. importer. During

the POR, Thai Union made all U.S. sales

through a trading company (July 10,

1996 Sect. A Quest., at 11). We find no

evidence on the record that

demonstrates an affiliation between

Thai Union and this company.

Therefore, because neither Saha Thai/

SAF and Thai Union are making sales

in the United States through affiliated

importers, we preliminarily find that the

statutory prerequisite for conducting a

duty absorption inquiry is not met.

Use of Facts Available

Saha Thai

We preliminarily determine that the

use of total adverse facts available is

appropriate with respect to Saha Thai’s

submitted data in accordance with

section 776(a)(2)(C) and section 776(b)

of the Act because we find that Saha

Thai has significantly impeded this

review by failing to comply with our

requests for complete information on

affiliates. In response to the

Department’s requests that Saha Thai

list all affiliated companies pursuant to

section 771(33), Saha Thai failed to

disclose its affiliation with Thai Tube, a

producer of subject merchandise, and

two resellers of subject merchandise and

members of the Siam Steel Group. (See

Memorandum to Robert S. LaRussa from

Joseph A. Spetrini, March 31, 1997 on

file in the Central Records Unit, Room

B099 of the main Commerce Building)

On December 12, 1996, in advance of

the scheduled cost verification of Saha

Thai, the Department issued a

verification agenda. The agenda stated

that the Department would review Saha

Thai’s list of affiliated parties from its

questionnaire responses and would

obtain a diagram describing the

relationship between these parties and

Saha Thai. (Verification Agenda at 4).

The agenda also stated that the

Department would try to obtain a

published list of affiliated parties to

compare with Saha Thai’s submitted

list, and would document any

previously unidentified affiliated

companies.

At verification, the Department

learned that members of Saha Thai’s

board of directors, who are also

shareholders of Saha Thai, have

ownership interests in two of Saha

Thai’s home market customers. We also

determined that these two customers are

resellers of subject merchandise. The

information obtained at verification

indicates an affiliation between Saha

Thai and these resellers under section

771(33)(F) through common control of

the identified directors. Sales to these

resellers represent a significant portion

of Saha Thai’s home market sales and

the Department’s analysis of Saha Thai’s

home market sales data indicates that

these sales failed the ‘‘arm’s length’’

test. However, because the information

that identified this potential affiliation

was received late in the proceeding, we

were unable to fully explore the nature

of the affiliation between Saha Thai and

the two resellers and to make a timely

determination of whether Saha Thai is

affiliated with these two resellers. If

Saha Thai had properly disclosed this

information during the information

gathering phase of this proceeding, the

Department would have requested

downstream sales data of these resellers

and calculated normal value for these

sales based on downstream prices

pursuant to section 773(a)(5).

In response to the Department’s

inquiries into Saha Thai’s affiliation

with the Siam Steel Group, an

organization of Thai steel companies of

which Saha Thai is a member, Saha

Thai provided the Department with

additional information concerning

affiliations and affiliated party

transactions. Saha Thai informed the

Department that Siam Steel

International, a member of the Siam

Steel Group, had become Saha Thai’s

largest shareholder. Saha Thai’s

managing director is also chairman of

Siam Steel International. By virtue of

Siam Steel’s equity interest and

common management, Saha Thai and

Siam Steel International are affiliated

under section 771(33) (E) and (F). Saha

Thai also provided the Department with

information demonstrating that Siam

Steel International had a substantial

ownership interest in one of Saha Thai’s

home market customers.

The Department also found evidence

that, contrary to Saha Thai’s statement,

one of the members of the Siam Steel

Group may be a producer of subject

merchandise. Moreover, this

information indicated additional

potential affiliations among the

members of the Siam Steel Group by

virtue of common management by two

related families. Saha Thai had failed to

disclose this information in response to

the Department’s questionnaires.

Because complete information regarding

the Siam Steel Group was not disclosed

in a timely manner, the Department was

prevented from further exploring the

nature of the interrelationships and

sales transactions between members of

the Siam Steel Group. (For a more

detailed discussion of issues raised at

verification, See the Cost Verification

Reports.)

At verification, Saha Thai confirmed

the identity of the chairman of Saha

Thai’s board of directors. (Saha Thai

Verification Report at 3). Following

verification of Saha Thai, the

Department obtained public information

which indicated that members of the

chairman’s family manage Thai Tube,

another Thai producer of welded carbon

steel pipes and tubes, and that a family

member is the managing director of Thai

Tube. The existence of this familial

relationship between Saha Thai’s

Chairman and Thai Tube’s managing

director, as indicated in a March 27,

1997 letter from Saha Thai’s counsel, is

a strong indication of affiliation between

Saha Thai and Thai Tube under section

771(33)(F). (A complete discussion of

post-verification findings, some of

which is proprietary, is contained in

Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini

to Robert S. LaRussa, March 31, 1997.)

We were unable to pursue the issue of

affiliation in a timely manner because

the Department did not receive the

information indicating affiliation

between Saha Thai and Thai Tube until

a few weeks before the deadline for the

preliminary results. Therefore, because

Saha Thai impeded our investigation of

this issue by failing to provide complete

information on affiliat4d parties as

requested by the Department, an adverse

inference is warranted under section

776(b). As adverse facts available, we

determine that Saha Thai and Thai Tube

are affiliated.

Under Department practice, the

affiliation between Saha Thai and Thai

Tube, both producers of subject

merchandise, would invoke an inquiry

to determine whether they should be

treated as a single entity for purposes of

calculating a dumping margin. See

section 351.401(f) of the Proposed

Regulations, 61 FR 7308, 7381 (Feb. 27,

1996); Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From

Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR

42833, 42853 (Aug. 19, 1996). However,

because Saha Thai failed to identify its

affiliation with Thai Tube in response to

the Department’s questionnaires, the

Department did not learn of this

affiliation until shortly before the

deadline for the preliminary results.

Therefore, the Department was

prevented from requesting additional

information from both Saha Thai and

Thai Tube necessary to complete the

collapsing analysis in a timely manner.

Therefore, as adverse facts available, we

preliminarily find that Saha Thai and

Thai Tube constitute a single enterprise

for margin calculation purposes.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Notices 17593

Saha Thai’s failure to report complete

information on affiliated parties

prevented the Department from: (1)

further exploring the nature of the

affiliation with the resellers to

determine whether it was necessary to

receive downstream sales data; (2)

further exploring the nature of

affiliations and affiliated party

transactions between members of the

Siam Steel Group; and (3) determining

whether Saha Thai and Thai Tube

should be treated as a single entity for

purposes of calculating a dumping

margin. We must therefore consider

whether Saha Thai’s submitted sales

and cost data is usable under section

782(e) of the Act.

Section 782(e) provides that the

Department shall not decline to

consider information that is submitted

by an interested party and is necessary

to the determination but does not meet

the applicable requirements established

by the Department if: (1) The

information is submitted by the

deadline established for its submission;

(2) the information can be verified; (3)

the information is not so incomplete

that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for

reaching the applicable determination;

(4) the interested party has

demonstrated that it acted to the best of

its ability in providing the information

and meeting the requirements

established by the Department with

respect to the information; and (5) can

be used without undue difficulties.

When examined in light of the

requirements of section 782(e), the facts

of this review demonstrate that Saha

Thai’s sales data is substantially

incomplete and unusable and leaves the

Department with no reasonable basis

upon which to calculate a dumping

margin. The verification disclosed

evidence of affiliations that Saha Thai

failed to provide in response to the

Department’s questionnaires.

Information obtained during and after

verification demonstrates that Saha Thai

failed to submit this information within

the established deadlines as required by

subsection (e)(1). Given the affiliation

between Saha Thai and Thai Tube, there

is no assurance that the Department has

reviewed the entire, rather than merely

a part, of the producer. When the

Department collapses affiliated

producers, it calculates a dumping

margin by merging the sales data of the

producers into a consolidated response.

See Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain

Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14,

1996). Because Saha Thai failed to

disclose its affiliation with Thai Tube in

a timely manner, the Department is

unable to request necessary sales data

from Thai Tube. Moreover, given the

evidence of additional affiliated party

transactions in the home market, there

is no assurance that the Department has

complete information on which to

calculate NV. Thus, we find that Saha

Thai’s submitted sales data is so

fundamentally flawed that it cannot

serve as a reliable basis on which to

calculate EP and NV as required by

section 782(e)(3). Because we find the

sales data to be unusable, the reliability

of the cost data is irrelevant because at

a minimum the Department needs

reliable U.S. sales data to calculate an

accurate dumping margin. Therefore,

Saha Thai’s sales and cost data cannot

be used without undue difficulties as

required by subsection (e)(5). On this

basis, we determine that it is

appropriate to resort to total facts

available.

The Department finds that Saha Thai

did not act to the best of its ability to

comply with requests for information on

affiliates. Saha Thai demonstrated an

understanding of the affiliated party

definition under section 771(33) by

identifying companies affiliated by

virtue of stock ownership and common

management. Its failure to provide

complete responses to our affiliation

inquiries despite numerous

opportunities to do so can only be

viewed as a failure to cooperate with

our requests for information. The failure

to identify an affiliated producer further

evidences its lack of cooperation. Saha

Thai failed to fully disclose its affiliates

in a timely manner. It is therefore

appropriate, under section 776(b) of the

Act, for the Department to use an

inference adverse to the interests of

Saha Thai in selecting from the facts

available. Because Saha Thai did not act

to the best of its ability to comply with

the Department’s requests, the

requirement of section 782(e)(4) is not

met.

Section 776(b) states that adverse facts

available information may be derived

from the petition, the final

determination in the LTFV

investigation, a previous administrative

review under section 751 or

determination under section 753, or

other information placed on the record.

See also Statement of Administrative

Action accompanying the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 316,

Vol. 1, 103d Cong., at 829–831 (1994)

(‘‘the SAA’’). The SAA notes that the

Department may employ an adverse

inference ‘‘to ensure that the party does

not obtain a more favorable result by

failing to cooperate than if it had

cooperated fully.’’ Id. at 870. Thus, ‘‘[i]n

employing adverse inferences, one

factor the [Department] will consider is

the extent to which a party may benefit

from its own lack of cooperation.’’ Id.

To ensure that Saha Thai does not

benefit from failing to cooperate with

the Department’s requests for

information on affiliates, we will

employ an adverse inference in

selecting from the facts available and

treat Saha Thai and Thai Tube as a

single entity. We will continue to

explore the affiliation issue for purposes

of the final results.

We determine that the highest

calculated margin from any prior

administrative review, 29.89 percent, is

appropriate for our total adverse facts

available margin. This rate was

calculated in the 1987–88

administrative review of this

proceeding, for another respondent,

Thai Union Steel Co., Ltd. See Circular

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes

from Thailand; Notice of Amendment to

Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 59 FR 65753

(December 21, 1994). As information

derived from a previous review under

section 751 concerning the subject

merchandise, this margin constitutes

‘‘secondary information’’ under section

776(c). Section 776(c) provides that the

Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate ‘‘secondary

information’’ used for facts available by

reviewing independent sources

reasonably at its disposal. The SAA

provides that to ‘‘corroborate’’ means

simply that the Department will satisfy

itself that the secondary information to

be used has probative value. SAA at

870. As noted in Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished

and Unfinished, from Japan, and

Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or

Less in Outside Diameter, and

Components Thereof, from Japan;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews and

Partial Termination of Administrative

Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392

(November 6, 1996), to corroborate

secondary information, the Department

will, to the extent practicable, examine

the reliability and relevance of the

information used. However, unlike

other types of information, such as

input costs or selling expenses, there are

no independent sources from which the

Department can derive calculated

dumping margins; the only source for

margins is administrative

determinations. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as total adverse facts available

a calculated dumping margin from a

prior segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of

the margin for that time period.
17594 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Notices

As to the relevance of the margin used

for adverse facts available, the

Department stated in the Tapered Roller

Bearings determination that it will

‘‘consider information reasonably at its

disposal as to whether there are

circumstances that would render a

margin irrelevant. Where circumstances

indicate that the selected margin is not

appropriate as adverse facts available,

the Department will disregard the

margin and determine an appropriate

margin.’’ Id.; see also Fresh Cut Flowers

from Mexico; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 60 FR 49567. We have

examined the history of this case and

determined that 29.89 percent, the rate

the Department calculated for Thai

Union in the 1987–88 administrative

review, is the highest calculated rate for

any prior segment of the proceeding. In

addition, the Court of International

Trade (CIT) affirmed the Department’s

calculation of the 29.89 percent rate for

Thai Union (a recalculation pursuant to

a remand order from the CIT, Slip Op.

94–7, (January 14, 1994)). In these

preliminary results, we have determined

that there is no evidence on the

administrative record for the 1987–88

review which indicates that this rate is

irrelevant or inappropriate as a total

facts available rate for Saha Thai.

Thai Union

We preliminarily determine that the

use of total adverse facts available is

appropriate with respect to Thai

Union’s submitted data in accordance

with section 776(a)(2)(D) and section

776(b) of the Act because we find that

Thai Union provided cost of production

(COP) data that could not be verified

and because Thai Union failed to

reconcile its reported costs with its

normal books and records. The last

administrative review that included

Thai Union as a respondent (1987–88)

found that Thai Union sold substantial

quantities of the subject merchandise in

the home market at prices below

production costs (See Certain Circular

Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube

from Thailand Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review,

55 FR 42596 (Oct. 22, 1990)). For this

reason, in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the

Department initiated a COP

investigation of Thai Union in the

instant administrative review.

In the initial questionnaire, the

Department instructed Thai Union to

report COP and constructed value (CV)

figures based on the actual costs

incurred by Thai Union during the POR

as recorded in its normal accounting

system. Thai Union was also requested

to describe how these figures reconciled

to the actual costs reported in its cost

accounting system and used by the

company to prepare its financial

statements. Thai Union provided

contradictory explanations of its cost

and financial accounting systems and

failed to provide the Department with

copies of its original cost accounting

sheets despite repeated requests to do

so. Thai Union never informed the

Department that it used a process other

than its normal accounting system and

normal cost allocation methods to

prepare its COP/CV responses.

Thai Union’s responses contained

substantial omissions and incomplete

responses to the Department’s requests

for clarification of its submitted cost

data. Thai Union failed to provide

supporting documentation for its

reported production yield data,

reconciliation of its inventory expenses,

calculation of general and

administrative expenses, methodology

for allocation of costs, and explanation

of its chart of accounts. Thai Union also

failed to report its subject merchandise

using the Department’s model match

methodology and did not provide an

explanation for its refusal to do so. (For

a more detailed discussion of the

deficiencies in Thai Union’s

questionnaire responses, see

Memorandum to Robert S. LaRussa from

Joseph A. Spetrini, March 31, 1997.)

On January 14, 1997, in advance of

the scheduled COP/CV verification of

Thai Union, the Department issued a

verification agenda which stated that

Thai Union’s reported cost data must be

reconciled to the company’s general

ledger, cost accounting system, and

financial statements. The agenda

indicated specific steps that would be

followed at verification to reconcile the

submitted cost data to the normal

accounting books and records, and

instructed Thai Union to contact the

Department if it had any questions

concerning the agenda or if it

determined that any of the verification

procedures could not be performed.

Thai Union did not contact the

Department regarding the verification

agenda prior to verification. In

accordance with section 782(i) of the

Act, from January 20 through January

24, 1997, the Department conducted a

verification of Thai Union’s submitted

cost data.

At verification, Thai Union was

unable to reconcile its submitted cost

data to its books and records or financial

statements. (A detailed discussion of the

Department’s verification of Thai

Union’s cost data is not possible in a

public notice due to the proprietary

nature of such information.) Because the

company was unable to reconcile its

submitted costs to its normal accounting

books and records and was unable to tie

its books and records to its financial

statements, the verification could not

proceed in an orderly and timely

manner. Thai Union was unable to

demonstrate to the Department that the

submitted COP and CV data was based

on the company’s actual production

experience and could not be verified

using the Department’s standard

verification procedures.

Because Thai Union submitted COP

data that could not be verified, it is

appropriate to use facts available in

accordance with section 776(a)(D) of the

Act. As discussed above, we must

therefore consider whether Thai Union’s

submitted cost data is usable under

section 782(e) of the Act. When

examined in light of these requirements,

the facts in this case indicate that Thai

Union’s cost data is so fundamentally

flawed as to render it unusable. First,

because Thai Union repeatedly failed to

provide the Department with requested

information such as worksheets to

support its calculated COP/CV figures,

the requirement of 782(e)(1) that

information be submitted within the

established deadline is not met. Second,

Thai Union was unable to reconcile its

submitted costs to its normal accounting

books and records at verification. The

COP and CV data submitted to the

Department by Thai Union was not

based on the company’s actual

production experience and could not be

verified as required by section 782(e)(2).

Third, because of the extensive

defects in its cost data, Thai Union’s

submitted COP data is unusable and

cannot serve as a reliable basis for

reaching the applicable determination

as required by section 782(e)(3). Insofar

as the Department can only make priceto-price comparisons (normal value to

export price) using those home market

sales that pass the cost test under

section 773(b) of the Act, the

systematically flawed nature of Thai

Union’s COP data prevents the

Department from making this

determination and thus from making

proper price-to-price comparisons. Also,

the Department is unable to calculate

reliable difference in merchandise

figures (DIFMERs) using Thai Union’s

unverified COP data. When comparing

normal value to export price, the

Department is required to account for

the effect of physical differences

between the merchandise sold in each

market. See, section 773(a)(6)(C) of the

Act. In this case DIFMERs would have

been required for a majority of the

United States and home market sales

matches. However, because DIFMER
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Notices 17595

data is based on COP information from

Thai Union’s questionnaire responses,

which as discussed above could not be

verified, the Department is unable to

determine the effect of physical

differences in making sales

comparisons.

In the absence of home market sales

data (i.e., when the home market is

viable but there are insufficient sales

that pass the cost test to compare with

U.S. sales), the Department would

normally resort to the use of CV to

calculate NV under section 773(a)(4).

However, the CV data reported by Thai

Union includes the unverifiable cost

data. Therefore, the use of facts

available for COP data precludes the use

of the submitted CV data. In addition,

although the Department elected not to

verify Thai Union’s sales data, the

Department determines that it is not

appropriate to accept Thai Union’s sales

data because its cost data could not be

verified. The Department has declined

to use a respondent’s sales data when its

cost data is unverifiable to avoid

manipulation of the margin calculation.

See Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR

30326. Based on these circumstances,

we find it appropriate to resort to total

facts available.

We find that Thai Union did not act

to the best of its ability to comply with

the Department’s requests for

information. As detailed above, Thai

Union failed to provide complete

responses to the Department’s numerous

requests for information. Despite our

instructions to do so, Thai Union was

unable to reconcile its reported cost data

with its normal books and records kept

in the ordinary course of business. Also,

Thai Union never informed the

Department of any difficulties it

encountered in complying with the

Department’s requests for information

prior to verification. It is therefore

appropriate, according to section 776(b)

of the Act, for the Department to use an

inference adverse to the interests of Thai

Union in selecting from the facts

available. Because Thai Union has not

acted to the best of its ability to comply

with our requests for information, we

find that section 782(e)(4) provides a

further basis for declining to use Thai

Union’s submitted cost and sales data.

Section 776(b) states that adverse facts

available information may be derived

from the petition, the final

determination in the LTFV

investigation, a previous administrative

review under section 751 or

determination under section 753, or

other information placed on the record.

See also SAA at 829–31. For a total

adverse facts available margin for Thai

Union, we considered both the highest

calculated margin from this proceeding,

29.89 percent, (the margin calculated for

Thai Union in the 1987–88

administrative review) and the average

of the estimated margins in the petition,

37.55 percent.

Because the highest calculated margin

from this proceeding is the rate

currently assigned to Thai Union, we

find that this rate is not adverse to Thai

Union. Accordingly, consistent with

section 776(b)(1) of the Act, to ensure

that Thai Union does not benefit from

failing to cooperate with our requests for

information, we conclude that the

average of the estimated margins in the

petition is the most appropriate

information on the record to form the

basis for a adverse facts available

margin. See e.g., Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel

Pipe from South Africa 61 FR 24271,

24273 (May 14, 1996).

As information derived from the

petition, this margin constitutes

‘‘secondary information’’ under section

776(c). Section 776(c) of the Act

provides that where the Department

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the

Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate that information

from independent sources reasonably at

the Department’s disposal. The SAA,

accompanying the URAA, clarifies that

information from the petition is

‘‘secondary information.’’ SAA at 870.

The SAA also clarifies that

‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine that

the information used has probative

value. Id. However, where corroboration

is not practicable, the Department may

use uncorroborated information. See

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta

From Turkey, 61 FR 30309, 30312 (June

14, 1996).

To corroborate the data contained in

the petition we examined the basis for

the estimated margins. To calculate

United States price, the petitioners were

unable to obtain price information for

U.S. sales. Therefore, they calculated

United States price based on a quote

from a U.S. importer and the U.S.

Customs value for Thailand imports of

the subject merchandise during

November 1984. The petitioners were

also unable to secure home market or

third country prices for the merchandise

subject to this investigation, therefore,

they used CV as the basis for foreign

market value. To calculate CV, the

petitioners applied U.S. industry cost of

manufacturing data, adjusted for

Thailand wage rates. Thailand wage

rates were based upon an average

industrial wage taken from the United

Nations Statistical Yearbook. The cost of

hot-rolled coil was calculated from

Japanese export statistics on coil

shipments to Thailand for September

1994. Adjustments were made to the

coil price for freight, insurance and

delivery charges from Japan to Thailand.

For galvanized products, estimates of

zinc costs were obtained from price

quotes of zinc traders in Thailand.

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes From Thailand;

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation, 50 FR 12068, 12068

(March 27, 1985); Antidumping Duty

Petition, February 28, 1985;

Memorandum for Alan F. Holmer from

Gilbert B. Kaplan, March 20, 1985.

Petitioners based United States price on

a price quote confirmed by an

independent public source (i.e., import

statistics). Further, the CV methodology

was reasonable and based on available

information including public data.

Therefore, we find that the margins in

the petition have probative value. See,

Steel Pipe from South Africa 61 FR at

24273; Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR at

30312.

Accordingly, we have corroborated, to

the extent practicable, the data

contained in the petition and have

relied upon this information for the

adverse facts available rate in this

review. We have assigned to Thai Union

a margin of 37.55 percent, the average

of the margins calculated in the petition

on subject merchandise.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our application of total

adverse facts available to Saha Thai and

Thai Union, we preliminarily determine

that the following weighted-average

dumping margins exist:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

Saha Thai/

SAF .......... 3/1/95–2/29/96 29.89

Thai Union ... 3/1/95–2/29/96 37.55

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication or the

first business day thereafter. Case briefs

and/or other written comments from

interested parties may be submitted not

later than 30 days after the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs and

rebuttals to written comments, limited

to issues raised in those comments, may

be filed not later than 37 days after the

date of publication of this notice. The

Department will publish the final
17596 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Notices

results of this administrative review,

which will include the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such

comments, within 120 days from the

date of publication of these preliminary

results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

export price and NV may vary from the

percentage stated above. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon the

publication of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of welded carbon steel pipes and tubes

from Thailand entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date, as provided

for by Section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for the reviewed

companies will be that established in

the final results of this 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 this review, or the

original LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be 15.67

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These 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 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

These preliminary results of review

are published pursuant to Section

751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–9260 Filed 4–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[Docket No. 970404079–7079–01]

RIN 0651–09

Secretarial Business Development

Missions to Brazil, Argentina, and

Chile

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice serves to inform

the public of Secretarial Business

Development Missions to Brazil, May

12–13, and Argentina and Chile, May

15–19, 1997 (‘‘the missions’’ or ‘‘trade

missions’’) and the opportunity to apply

for participation in the missions; sets

forth objectives, procedures, and

participation criteria for the missions;

and requests applications.

DATES: Applications should be

submitted to Cheryl Bruner by April 25,

1997, in order to ensure sufficient time

to obtain in-country appointments for

applicants selected to participate in the

mission. Applications received after that

date will be considered only if space

and scheduling constraints permit. The

missions are scheduled for: Brazil—May

12–13, and Argentina and Chile, May

15–19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Request for and submission

of applications—Applications are

available from: Cheryl Bruner, Project

Officer and Director of the Office of

Business Liaison or Katy Ruth at 202–

482–1360 or via facsimile at 202–482–

4054. Numbers listed in this notice are

not toll-free. An original and two copies

of the required application materials

should be sent to the Project Officer

noted above. If a party is interested in

both missions, an application must be

submitted for each mission.

Applications sent by facsimile must be

immediately followed by submission of

the original application to Ms. Bruner at

the following address: Office of

Business Liaison, Room 5062, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cheryl Bruner or Katy Ruth at 202–482–

1360. Information is also available via

the International Trade Administration’s

(ITA) Internet home page at ‘‘http://

www.ita.doc.gov/uscs/doctm’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Trade Mission Description

Secretary of Commerce, William M.

Daley, will lead two trade missions to

Latin America in May, each with a U.S.

business delegation. The Mission to

Brazil will include stops in Rio de

Janeiro and Sao Paulo. While in Brazil,

the Secretary will attend the Americas

Business Forum in Belo Horizonte, an

event separate from the trade mission.

Members of the U.S. private sector

delegation on the Brazil Trade Mission

are encouraged to attend the Forum at

their option. After the Brazil trade

mission, the Secretary will meet another

U.S. business delegation in Argentina

which will participate in the trade

mission there and in Chile. The overall

focus of the trip will be the commercial

opportunities, including joint ventures,

presented by the development and

liberalization in Brazil’s, Argentina’s

and Chile’s infrastructure and other

economic sectors, and the promotion of

the United States as a destination for

foreign tourists. Specific sectors to be

highlighted include electric power

generation, information technologies

(including telecommunications and

computers), environmental

technologies, transportation

infrastructure and infrastructure

finance. The United States and Foreign

Commercial Service will provide

logistical support for these activities at

each stop.

The itinerary of the Brazil Mission

will be as follows:

May 11 (Sun):

Leave United States

May 12 (Mon):

Arrive Rio de Janeiro

Leave Rio de Janeiro

Arrive Sao Paulo

May 13 (Tues):

Depart Sao Paulo

Arrive Belo Horizonte (Belo Horizonte

portion of trip at participant’s option)

May 14 (Wed):

Belo Horizonte (Americas Business Forum)

May 15 (Thurs):

Depart Belo Horizonte

The itinerary for the Argentina and

Chile Mission will be as follows:

May 15 (Thurs):

Arrive Buenos Aires

May 16 (Fri):

Buenos Aires

May 17 (Sat):

Leave Buenos Aires

Arrive Santiago

May 18 (Sun):

Santiago

May 19 (Mon):

Santiago

May 20 (Tues):