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–
20580 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices

1 J&L Speciality Steel, Inc. is not a petitioner in

the Belgium case.

2North American Stainless is not a petitioner in

the Italy case.

3The United Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO/

CLC is not a petitioner in the Canada case.

41 (CIT 1984) as stating that under the

ministerial error procedure the

Department may only correct an

inadvertence or mistake that involves no

discretionary considerations. Petitioner

further contends that the Department

applied the interest expense and GNA

factors to Mannesmann’s adjusted COM

correctly under the law. Petitioner

asserts that Mannesmann fails to cite

any previous case where, unlike in this

case, the Department performed its

build-up of cost of production (COP) by

applying GNA and interest expense

factors to a COM that values a major

input at the affiliates’ reported cost of

production even though the Department

expressly disregarded those costs.

Petitioner argues that it is standard

Department practice that all COP/CV

cost calculations be based on a

respondent’s manufacturing costs as

adjusted, when appropriate, under the

major input rule.

We agree with petitioner that this

issue is methodological in nature and

have not made this correction in the

amended final results. We note that the

same calculation was made in the

preliminary results of review, and

Mannesmann did not comment on it in

its case brief.

Third, petitioner argues that the

Department erred in the calculation of

net price (NPRICOP) for use in the cost

test. Petitioner asserts that the

calculations performed understate the

adjustments to GRSUPRH (gross unit

price) and overstate NPRICOP.

Petitioner notes that Mannesmann’s

failure at verification on certain inland

freight charges (INLFTC2H) essentially

resulted in the Department’s application

of adverse facts available in the

calculation of normal value. The

petitioner further argues that the

Department’s calculation of NPRICOP in

the below-cost test rewards

Mannesmann by raising net price,

thereby tending to cause fewer sales to

fall below cost.

We disagree with petitioner that this

issue is clerical in nature. We find that

this issue is methodological in nature

and have not made this correction in the

amended final results. Since most of

petitioner’s argument is business

proprietary, please see Amended Final

Analysis Memorandum for a more

detailed explanation of this issue. We

note that the same calculation was made

in the preliminary results of review, and

petitioner did not comment on it in its

case brief.

Amended Final Results of Review

We determine that the following

weighted-average margin exists:

Manufacturer/

exporter Period of review

Margin

(percent)

Mannesmann 1/27/95—7/31/96 21.94

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. We will calculate importerspecific ad valorem duty assessment

rates based on the entered value of each

entry of subject merchandise during the

POR. We will direct the Customs

Service to collect cash deposits of

estimated antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. The amended

deposit requirements are effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication date of this notice and will

remain in effect until the publication of

the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this

review period. Failure to comply with

this requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and subsequent assessment of

double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation. Timely written

notification of the return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with Section 751(a)(1)

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

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 16, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–10999 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–423–808, A–122–830, A–475–822, A–791–

805, A–580–831 and A–583–830]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations: Stainless Steel Plate in

Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy,

Republic of South Africa, South Korea

and Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Presing (Belgium), at (202) 482–

0194; Maureen McPhillips (Canada), at

(202) 482–0193; Rick Johnson (Italy,

Republic of Korea, and Taiwan) at (202)

482–3818; Robert James (Republic of

South Africa), at (202) 482–5222, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The 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’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

regulations published in the Federal

Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27296).

The Petition

On March 31, 1998, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) received a

petition filed in proper form by Armco,

Inc., J&L Specialty Steel, Inc.1, Lukens,

Inc., North American Stainless 2, the

United Steelworkers of America, AFL–

CIO/CLC3, the Butler Armco

Independent Union and the Zanesville

Armco Independent Organization, Inc.

(petitioners). The Department received

supplemental information to the

petition on April 14, 15, 17 and 20,

1998.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, petitioners allege that imports

of stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC)

from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic of

South Africa, Republic of Korea and