[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20579-20580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10999]


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

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-

[[Page 20580]]

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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
           Manufacturer/exporter             Period of review  (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 importer-specific 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