20578 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices

United States published in the

International Financial Statistics of 8.44

percent. The petitioners did not adjust

the reported prices for differences in

packing costs because the petitioners

assumed that packing costs were the

same for home market and for U.S.

sales.

Comparison of NV and net U.S. prices

for sales of ESBR from Korea results in

estimated dumping margins that range

from 14.92 percent to 118.88 percent.

Mexico

The petitioners identified Industrias

Negromex, S.A. de C.V. (Negromex) as

the sole exporter and producer of ESBR

from Mexico. The petitioners based

export price on contemporaneous price

quotes to an unaffiliated U.S. consumer

and U.S. prices in call reports generated

by the petitioners’ sales personnel in the

normal course of business over the last

12 months for grades 1502 and 1712.

The petitioners converted U.S. prices

quoted in dollars per pound to dollars

per metric ton by multiplying the per

pound amounts by 2204.60 pounds per

metric ton. The petitioners calculated

net U.S. prices by subtracting an

estimate of the international freight and

insurance expenses incurred to

transport the subject merchandise from

the factory to a port in the United States

or to the U.S. customer, depending on

the terms of sales specified in the call

reports. Where the terms of sale were

not specified in the call report, the

petitioners assumed that the terms of

sale were FOB Mexico and no freight

expense was deducted from the U.S.

price. The petitioners estimated the cost

of international freight and insurance

based upon the difference in the CIF

values and the U.S. Customs values

reported in the official U.S. import

statistics for 1997.

With respect to NV, the petitioners

obtained from a local business contact

in Mexico contemporaneous price

quotes for ESBR grades 1502 and 1712

from Negromex to Mexican consumers

of ESBR. The petitioners converted

home market prices quoted in pesos per

kilogram to U.S. dollars per metric ton

by using a conversion ratio of one

kilogram equals 1/1000 metric tons and

the Mexican pesos/U.S. dollar exchange

rate in effect on the date of the U.S. sale.

Daily exchange rates for 1997 were

obtained from the database of exchange

rates maintained by Import

Administration on the internet. Daily

exchange rates for 1998 were obtained

from The Money Exchange (internet

address www.oanda.com).

The petitioners made a circumstance

of sale adjustment for imputed credit

expenses by subtracting home market

credit expenses and by adding U.S.

credit expenses to the net home market

prices calculated in the petition. The

petitioners calculated home market

imputed credit expenses based on

payment terms of net 60 days, as

reported by the local business contacts,

and the annual average Mexican

Treasury bill rate published by the

International Financial Statistics of

19.80 percent. The petitioners

calculated U.S. credit expenses based on

payment terms of net 30 days and the

annual average lending rate in the

United States published in the

International Financial Statistics of 8.44

percent. The petitioners did not adjust

the reported prices for differences in

packing costs because the petitioners

assumed that packing costs were the

same for home market and for U.S.

sales.

Comparison of NV and net U.S. prices

for sales of ESBR from Mexico results in

estimated dumping margins that range

from 6.06 percent to 25.16 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of ESBR from Brazil, Korea,

and Mexico are being, or are likely to be,

sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petition alleges that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, and

is threatened with material injury, by

reason of imports of the subject

merchandise sold at less than NV. The

allegations of injury and causation are

supported by relevant evidence

including business proprietary data

from the petitioning firms and U.S.

Customs import data. The Department

assessed the allegations and supporting

evidence regarding material injury and

causation and determined that these

allegations are sufficiently supported by

accurate and adequate evidence and

meet the statutory requirements for

initiation.

Initiation of Antidumping

Investigations

We have examined the petition on

ESBR and have found that it meets the

requirements of section 732 of the Act.

Therefore, we are initiating

antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of ESBR

from Brazil, Korea, and Mexico are

being, or are likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value.

Unless extended, we will make our

preliminary determinations for the

antidumping duty investigations by

September 8, 1998.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of each petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

governments of Brazil, Korea, and

Mexico. We will attempt to provide a

copy of the public version of the

petition to each exporter named in the

petition (as appropriate).

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiations, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine by May 18,

1998, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of ESBR from

Brazil, Korea, and Mexico are causing

material injury, or threatening to cause

material injury, to a U.S. industry.

Negative ITC determinations will result

in the particular investigations being

terminated; otherwise, the

investigations will proceed according to

statutory and regulatory time limits.

Dated: April 21, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–11148 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–838]

Agreement Suspending the

Antidumping Investigation on Honey

From the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to the

agreement between the United States

Department of Commerce and the

Government of the People’s Republic of

China Suspending the Antidumping

Investigation on Honey from the

People’s Republic of China.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

and the Government of the People’s

Republic of China have signed an

Amendment to the Agreement

Suspending the Antidumping

Investigation on Honey from China.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Abdelali Elouaradia at 202/482–2243, or
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices 20579

James C. Doyle at 202/482–0159, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 4, 1998, the Department

and the Government of the People’s

Republic of China initialed an

Amendment to change the base period

for calculating reference prices from the

most recent six months of data to the

most recent three months of data. The

purpose of this amendment is to allow

the reference prices to conform more

closely to market conditions. The

Department subsequently released the

Amendment to interested parties for

comment. After careful consideration by

the Department of the comments

submitted on March 24, 1998, and

further consultations between the

parties, the Department and the

Government of the People’s Republic of

China signed a final Amendment on

April 13, 1998. The text of the final

Amendment follows this notice.

Dated: April 16, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

The United States Department of

Commerce and the Government of the

People’s Republic of China (PRC) hereby

amend Section IV. REFERENCE PRICE

of the Agreement Suspending the

Antidumping Investigation on Honey

from the PRC, signed August 2, 1995 to

read as follows:

Section IV. REFERENCE PRICE

The reference prices are equal to the

product of 92 percent and the weightedaverage of the honey unit import values

from all other countries based on the

most recent three months of data at the

time the reference price is calculated.

The source of the unit import values is

publicly available United States trade

statistics from the United States Bureau

of the Census.

This amendment shall apply to all

reference prices effective on and after

July 1, 1998.

Dated: April 10, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

For the United States Department of

Commerce.

Dated: April 13, 1998.

Qian Changyong,

For the Ministry of Foreign Trade and

Economic Cooperation, PRC.

[FR Doc. 98–10998 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–428–820]

Small Diameter Circular Seamless

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line

and Pressure Pipe From Germany:

Amendment of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Amendment of Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

SUMMARY: On March 18, 1998, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published the final results

of its administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Small

Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and

Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure

Pipe From Germany (63 FR 13217)

covering the period January 27, 1995

through July 31, 1996. Based on the

correction of a ministerial error made in

the final results, we are publishing this

amendment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Decker or Linda Ludwig, Office

of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482–0196 or

482–3833, 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 by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(‘‘URAA’’). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all references to the

Department’s regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 353 (April 1, 1997).

Background

On March 18, 1998, the Department

published the final results of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Small

Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and

Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure

Pipe From Germany (63 FR 13217). This

review covers one manufacturer/

exporter of the subject merchandise,

Mannesmannroehren-Werke AG

(‘‘MRW’’), and Mannesmann Pipe &

Steel Corporation (‘‘MPS’’) (collectively

‘‘Mannesmann’’), for the period January

27, 1995 through July 31, 1996. After

publication of our final results, we

received timely allegations from

petitioner and Mannesmann that we had

made ministerial errors in calculating

the final results. The petitioner filed a

timely rebuttal to Mannesmann’s

ministerial error allegations. We

corrected our calculations, where we

agree that we made ministerial errors, in

accordance with section 751 (h) of the

Tariff Act.

Analysis of Ministerial Error

Allegations Received From Interested

Parties

We received two ministerial error

allegations from Mannesmann and one

from petitioner. First, Mannesmann

contends that the Department neglected

to convert certain indirect selling

expenses and inventory carrying costs

(RINDIRSU and INVCARU) to U.S.

dollars from Deutsche Marks.

Mannesmann notes that these variables

are created using a factor multiplied by

the cost of manufacturing (TOTCOMCV)

which is reported in Deutsche Marks.

Mannesmann asserts that the

Department should correct the final

results by converting RINDIRSU and

INVCARU to U.S. dollars.

As defined by section 751(h) Act, the

term ‘‘ministerial error’’ includes errors

‘‘in addition, subtraction, or other

arithmetic function, clerical errors

resulting from inaccurate copying,

duplication, or the like, and any other

type of unintentional error which the

[Department] considers ministerial.’’ We

agree with Mannesmann that RINDIRSU

and INVCARU should be converted to

U.S. dollars. This type of unintentional

error meets the definition of ministerial

error contained in the Act. We have

made the suggested correction for the

amended final results.

Second, Mannesmann asserts that the

factors for general and administrative

expenses (GNA) and interest expenses

are based upon cost data as reported by

Mannesmann and not as adjusted by the

Department. Therefore, Mannesmann

argues, these GNA and interest factors

should be applied before the

Department’s billet cost adjustment is

made to material costs.

Petitioner argues that Mannesmann

has made no showing that applying the

GNA and expense factors to

Mannesmann’s adjusted cost of

manufacturing (COM) was an

inadvertent or unintentional act, as

opposed to a deliberate, methodological

choice by the Department. Petitioner

cites Melamine Chemicals, Inc. v.

United States, 592 F. Supp. 1338, 1340–