Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices 32825

the Department has determined that it is

appropriate to adopt the ‘‘new shipper’’

rate established in the first final results

of administrative review published by

the Department (or that rate as amended

for correction of clerical errors as a

result of litigation) as the ‘‘all others’’

rate for the purposes of establishing

cash deposits in all current and future

administrative reviews (see, e.g., Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review of Tapered

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in

Outside Diameter, and Components

Thereof, From Japan, 58 FR 64720,

(December 9, 1993)).

Therefore, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

applied is the rate of 3.9 percent from

Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber From

Finland, Final Results of Administrative

Review of Antidumping Finding (46 FR

19844, April 1, 1981), the first review

conducted by the Department in which

a ‘‘new shipper’’ rate (or in this case, a

rate for all shipments of the subject

merchandise, including new shippers)

was established.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a 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.

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.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 8, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–15872 Filed 6–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–502]

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes

and Tubes From India; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On February 9, 1998, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain welded carbon steel pipes

and tubes from India. The review covers

two manufacturers/exporters. The

period of review is May 1, 1996, through

April 30, 1997.

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have made

changes, including corrections of certain

inadvertent programming and clerical

errors, in the margin calculation.

Therefore, the final results differ from

the preliminary results. The final

weighted-average dumping margin is

listed below in the section entitled

‘‘Final Results of Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Davina Hashmi, at (202) 482–5760, or

Greg Thompson, at (202) 482–0410, of

the Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to 19

CFR Part 353 (1997).

Background

On February 9, 1998, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published the Preliminary Results of

Administrative Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes

from India, 63 FR 6531. The review

covers two manufacturers/exporters.

The period of review (POR) is May 1,

1996, through April 30, 1997. We

invited interested parties to comment on

the preliminary results of review. At the

request of one respondent, Rajinder

Pipes Ltd. and Rajinder Steel Ltd.

(collectively called ‘‘RSL’’), we held a

public hearing on April 6, 1998. The

Department has conducted this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Reviews

The products covered by this review

include circular welded non-alloy steel

pipes and tubes, of circular crosssection, with an outside diameter of

0.372 inch or more but not more than

406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in outside

diameter, regardless of wall thickness,

surface finish (black, galvanized, or

painted), or end finish (plain end,

bevelled end, threaded, or threaded and

coupled). These pipes and tubes are

generally known as standard pipe,

though they may also be called

structural or mechanical tubing in

certain applications. Standard pipes and

tubes are intended for the low-pressure

conveyance of water, steam, natural gas,

air and other liquids and gases in

plumbing and heating systems, airconditioner units, automatic sprinkler

systems, and other related uses.

Standard pipe may also be used for light

load-bearing and mechanical

applications, such as for fence tubing,

and for protection of electrical wiring,

such as conduit shells.

The scope is not limited to standard

pipe and fence tubing or those types of

mechanical and structural pipe that are

used in standard pipe applications. All

carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the

physical description outlined above are

included in the scope of this order,

except for line pipe, oil-country tubular

goods, boiler tubing, cold-drawn or

cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and

tube hollows for redraws, finished

scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit.

Imports of the products covered by

this review 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, 7306.30.50.90. Although

the HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and customs purposes,

the written description of the scope of

this proceeding is dispositive.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made certain

corrections that changed our

preliminary results. A discussion of the

arguments raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs submitted to the
32826 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices

Department is contained in the

following section entitled, ‘‘Analysis of

Comments Received.’’

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment 1: The petitioners argue that

the Department should apply facts

available to those selling expenses and

costs that could not be verified due to

Rajinder’s failure to prepare for

verification properly. Specifically, the

petitioners posit that the Department

should disallow the deduction from

normal value (NV) certain unverified

home-market (HM) selling expenses and

should deduct from the price in the

United States the highest reported

expense for certain unverified U.S.

selling expenses.

The petitioners state that, in

accordance with sections 776 and 782(i)

of the Act and Olympic Adhesive Inc. v.

United States (899 F.2d 1565, 1572

(Fed. Cir. 1990)), the Department may

disregard respondent’s information if

such information cannot be verified and

where manipulation of the margins may

occur because a respondent may

provide information selectively that the

Department requested. The petitioners

argue that there is no justification for

Rajinder’s failure to prepare for

verification properly and for the

frequent delays the Department

encountered at verification. The

petitioners point out that Rajinder had

been given, in advance, an itinerary of

the topics to be covered during

verification and posit that Rajinder had

ample time to prepare adequately for the

verification. The petitioners also note

that Rajinder has previous verification

experience and, therefore, should have

known what was needed and expected.

Finally, the petitioners state that it is

Department practice to make an adverse

inference and to apply facts available in

cases where respondent impedes the

progress of the review and fails to act to

the best of its ability to comply with the

Department’s request for information.

The petitioners contend that, in the

instant proceeding, the situation

warrants the application of adverse facts

available.

Rajinder refutes the petitioners’

argument that facts available should be

applied to certain HM and U.S. selling

expenses and argues that the petitioners

have distorted the facts as they relate to

the HM verification. Rajinder contends

that, although it could have been better

prepared for verification, its lack of

preparation does not warrant the use of

facts available, nor does it suggest that

Rajinder in any way has impeded this

review or failed to cooperate with the

Department. Rajinder states that, on the

contrary, most of the claimed

adjustments were verified with very few

discrepancies. Rajinder points to the

verification report as support for the

number of tests performed and the

number of adjustments the verifiers

examined, most of which had no

discrepancies and some of which had

discrepancies that were

disadvantageous to Rajinder.

Rajinder also refutes the petitioners’

assertion that it provided requested

information selectively. Rajinder

explains that, with respect to those

adjustments that the Department did not

examine at verification, the verifiers

were simply not able to cover those

topics in the time allotted for the

verification. Rajinder argues that, had it

wanted to select adjustments that it did

not want the Department to verify, it

would have selected the large

adjustments, not the minor ones.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the respondent in part. With the

exception of HM indirect selling

expenses and duty drawback (see

comment 4), we have accepted all of

Rajinder’s submitted information. Our

determination in this regard is

consistent with the statute and our

practice. We have concluded, in

accordance with section 776(a) of the

Act, that the use of facts available for

Rajinder’s HM indirect selling expenses

is appropriate because we were unable

to verify the accuracy of the information

Rajinder submitted despite numerous

requests on our part to obtain the data.

By not providing certain basic

verification documents that were

essential to the establishment of the

accuracy of the data submitted, Rajinder

did not cooperate to the best of its

ability to comply with our requests for

such information. Accordingly, we are

using an adverse inference with respect

to this item in full accordance with law.

See section 776(b) of the Act. While we

have determined that Rajinder did not

cooperate to the best of its ability with

respect to the HM indirect selling

expenses, we do not find that this

undermines the credibility of the other

information Rajinder submitted during

this review. See Monsanto Co. v. United

States, 698 F. Supp. 275 281 (CIT 1988).

Accordingly, we have calculated

Rajinder’s margin using all the data it

submitted with the exception of the two

items mentioned above.

As for the petitioners’ concerns that

Rajinder manipulated the process, it

should be noted that, from the outset of

verification, we selected adjustments

out of the order from which they were

listed in the verification outline. In

other words, we conducted a ‘‘spot

check’’ of various expense items which

would preclude Rajinder from

‘‘manipulating’’ the process and

selectively providing information to

certain adjustments. In this manner, we

were able to ensure that all items we

selected were covered in time.

Comment 2: The petitioners argue that

certain letters Rajinder submitted to the

Department (dated January 13, 14, 15,

20, and 26, 1998) were untimely filed

and should be removed from the official

record in this review and not considered

by the Department for the final results

of this review. The petitioners also

contend that the verifying officials did

not request information contained in the

respective January letters as stated by

the respondents. The petitioners state

further that even the first of the series

of January letters (dated January 13,

1998) was submitted beyond the normal

seven-day period for submitting

information after the date on which

verification is completed.

Rajinder contends that the January

submissions with which the petitioners

take issue should not be removed from

the official record. Rajinder states that

the letter dated January 13, 1998, was

submitted at the request of the

Department for the purpose of clarifying

Rajinder’s calculations for its reported

variable costs of manufacture. Rajinder

also states that, in accordance with 19

CFR 353.31(b)(1), the Department may

solicit information from respondents at

any time. Rajinder states further that the

letters dated January 14, 15, and 20,

1998, pertain to information contained

in Rajinder’s Duty Exemption

Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) book

which was in the possession of the

Customs Authority at the time of

verification. Rajinder contends that,

with respect to the letter dated January

26, 1998, the content of the letter was

already examined at verification and

that Rajinder should not be penalized

for submitting a document that was not

in existence at the time of verification.

Rajinder points out, however, that, in

the event that the Department rejects the

letters dated January 14, 15, 20, and 26,

1998, that these letters are not necessary

to demonstrate the validity of Rajinder’s

duty-drawback claim.

Department’s Position: In accordance

with 19 CFR 353.31(a)(2) we have

rejected the January 14, 15, 20, and 26,

1998, letters because they were

untimely and we did not request the

information they contained. See letters

to the respondent’s counsel dated

February 12, 1998, and April 16, 1998.

We accepted Rajinder’s January 13 letter

because the information contained in

that letter was submitted at our request.

Comment 3: The petitioners contend

that the Department erroneously found

two levels of trade (LOTs) in the HM

and argue that the Department should
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices 32827

rescind the LOT adjustment it granted

Rajinder in the preliminary results of

review. The petitioners argue that

Rajinder prevented the examination of

the existence of two HM LOTs at

verification, despite the Department’s

intention to examine this topic, and

therefore, the information upon which

the Department based its findings of two

HM LOTs is unsupported.

The petitioners take issue with the

Department’s reasoning behind its

categorization of Rajinder’s customers

into two channels of distribution and

assert that such reasoning does not

establish two HM LOTs. The petitioners

argue that, rather than base the

determination of different LOTs in the

HM properly on selling activities of the

producer, the Department instead

considered the selling functions of the

purchaser. The petitioners also assert

that the record does not support

qualitatively or quantitatively the

differences in selling activities and

functions made between Channel One

(sales to government agencies, OEMs,

and end-users) and Channel Two (sales

to local distributors and trading

companies) customers.

In addition, the petitioners assert that,

if the Department finds that two HM

LOTs exist, Rajinder has not fulfilled its

burden of providing evidence that

established the claimed price

differential between sales at the

different LOTs, citing the URAA, the

Statement of Administrative Action

(103d Cong. 2d Session, House Doc.

103–316 at 829 (1994)), and Koyo Seiko

Co. Ltd. v. United States, 18 ITRD 1867

at 1870 (CIT June 19, 1996). The

petitioners point out that the CIT has

upheld the Department’s decision to

deny respondent’s claimed price

differential where a respondent fails to

provide such information (citing NTN

Bearing Corp. v. United States, 905 F.

Supp. 1083, 1093–4 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1995)).

The petitioners also argue that

Rajinder has not demonstrated a causal

link between the reported selling

functions and the claimed differences in

price. The petitioners argue further that,

on a model-specific basis, Rajinder’s

data reveals a highly inconsistent and

disparate pattern of price differences

across different models which, the

petitioners assert, cannot be attributed

to differences in the claimed LOTs. The

petitioners assert that such disparate

price differences are attributable to

premiums that the Indian government is

willing to pay for such merchandise.

The petitioners argue further that an

analysis of the weighted-average HM

prices of Channels One and Two sales

are not commensurate with the number

of selling activities associated with each

LOT. For instance, petitioners argue

that, given the large number of selling

activities associated with Channel One

sales, it does not make sense that the

HM prices for Channel Two sales are

higher than the HM prices for Channel

One sales. The petitioners state that,

because Rajinder has not provided

evidence demonstrating a consistent

pattern of price differences attributable

to Rajinder’s claimed LOTs, the

Department should not grant Rajinder a

LOT adjustment for the final results of

review.

Rajinder argues that, contrary to the

petitioners’ assertion, the record does

support a finding of two HM LOTs.

Rajinder refutes the petitioners’

argument that it prevented the

Department from examining LOT

information at verification and asserts

that the petitioners mischaracterized the

events that took place at verification.

Rajinder notes that, because nearly

every adjustment the Department

examined at verification was accurate

with no discrepancies found, there is no

reason to question the selling activities

listed in Rajinder’s selling-functions

chart.

In addition, Rajinder argues that both

its original and supplemental

questionnaire responses demonstrate

that a price differential at the two

claimed LOTs does exist. Rajinder

argues further that it has explained the

causal link between the reported selling

functions and the claimed differences in

price. Regarding the petitioners’ modelspecific analysis, Rajinder notes that

this analysis incorporates sales that took

place over a number of months. Rajinder

points out that variances in price

differences across different models over

time is a normal phenomenon. Rajinder

notes further that its sales made to the

government involve state government

agencies which desire lower prices and

therefore would not pay premiums as

alleged by the petitioners.

Rajinder argues that, with respect to

the petitioners’ assertion that its HM

weighted-average prices are not

commensurate with the number of

selling activities associated with each

LOT, the petitioners’ analysis is flawed.

Rajinder contends that the wrong

months and, thus, the incorrect sales

were used in the analysis. Rajinder

states that, because its sales were made

in months that have nearly six-month

intervals between the sales compared, it

is likely that prices will vary. Finally,

Rajinder argues that the petitioners used

net HM prices which distorted their

analysis. Rajinder concludes that,

because the petitioners’ analysis is

flawed and is therefore invalid, the

Department should maintain its finding

of two LOTs in the HM and make a LOT

adjustment for the final results of

review.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with the petitioners. For the final results

of review, we have granted Rajinder a

LOT adjustment. Although we did not

specifically examine the issue of LOT at

verification, the record supports

Rajinder’s claim of two channels of

distribution in the HM. As noted

previously, the purpose of verification is

to ensure that a respondent reported the

information the Department requested

accurately (see our response to comment

1). In any given proceeding, the

information we request from a

respondent can be extensive. The

examination of such information subject

to verification is an extensive process,

particularly given that a HM verification

of a company’s sales or cost information

is normally conducted within a period

of one week or less. The Department,

therefore, cannot examine each and

every adjustment that is included in the

verification outline. See Monsanto Co.

v. United States, 698 F. Supp. 275 281

(CIT 1988). In the instant case,

Department officials selected

adjustments to examine randomly and

Rajinder was never put in a position to

control the Department’s verification of

its response. Furthermore, the

adjustments we examined at verification

were accurate, with a few minor

exceptions. The fact that we did not

examine the issue of LOT does not lead

us to question the validity of Rajinder’s

selling activities, channels of

distribution, or the narrative response

discussing such selling functions.

We also disagree with the petitioners’

claim that the record lacks evidence of

two separate LOTs in the HM. In its

narrative response, Rajinder explained

that it sells the foreign like product

through two channels of distribution

(Channel One and Channel Two). In our

preliminary analysis memorandum, we

stated that we grouped Rajinder’s

reported customer categories into two

channels of distribution for the

following reasons: (1) the level of

involvement, selling functions and

expenses for the two categories of

customers are significantly different; (2)

a number of OEM and end-user

customers are departments within the

Indian government and, therefore, we

found that it is appropriate to place

these customers in the same category as

state government agencies; and (3)

Channel One customers use

merchandise for their own

consumption, whereas Channel Two

customers resell the merchandise

purchased from Rajinder. The
32828 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices

petitioners argue factors two and three

do not establish different LOTs.

However, the categorization of such

customers into two channels of

distribution does not, in and of itself,

establish two different LOTs. Rather, the

three factors emphasize similarities

between different customer types so that

they can be placed in categories for the

purpose of determining whether

different LOTs exist. Further, while the

significance of the three factors may

vary across customer types, we have

determined, based on an analysis of

these three factors, that the customers

fall into two distinct groups.

The petitioners’ argument that LOT is

determined by the selling activity of the

producer, not the selling functions of

the purchasers, is true, but misplaced.

In order to determine the LOT of U.S.

sales and comparison sales, we review

and compare distribution systems that

include not only selling activities of the

producer, but also the class of its

customer (point in the distribution

chain). Furthermore, there is a direct

relationship between the classification

of a given entity and the function of that

entity. Therefore, as part of our LOT

analysis, we classify the producer’s

customers (e.g., wholesaler, retailer)

based on the activities they perform in

selling the product under review. We do

not, however, consider the selling

functions of the customer when

determining whether different LOTs

exist.

We have accepted the selling-function

chart Rajinder provided as part of its

verified questionnaire response. As we

stated in preliminary results of review,

we used six of the listed functions to

make a distinction between selling

activities associated with Channels One

and Two: market research, professional

services and business systems

development, engineering services,

agent coordination, research and

development, and advertising. As the

chart that the petitioners included in

their brief shows, there is a marked

difference between the selling functions

being performed in the two channels of

distribution.

Based on the above factors, we

determined that there are two LOTs in

the HM. One of these (Channel Two) is

equivalent to the sales made at the

constructed export price (CEP).

However, since some of our U.S. sales

matched to the other LOT we reviewed

the data to determine if a LOT

adjustment was appropriate.

Sales at the other channel are made at

a more advanced level; therefore, we

next determined whether there was a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the two HM LOTs and whether

a LOT adjustment was appropriate. The

analysis we performed on Rajinder’s

information indicated that an

adjustment was appropriate. The

petitioners’ argument regarding

causation is misguided. The statute

requires that the price differences be

‘‘wholly or partly due’’ to differences in

LOTs; it does not require a

determination of the exact price effect

caused by LOT differences and it would

not be possible to do so, given the

variety of market forces that affect the

sales price of each transaction we

review (see Antifriction Bearings (Other

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and

Parts Thereof From France et.al: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081,

2108 (January 15, 1997) (AFBs)).

Comment 4: Rajinder argues that the

Department’s denial of its claimed dutydrawback adjustment is unreasonable.

Rajinder contends that it met both parts

of the Department’s test: (a) Whether the

import duty and rebate are directly

linked to, and dependent upon, one

another; and (b) whether the company

claiming the adjustment can show that

there were sufficient imports of the

imported raw materials to account for

the drawback received on the exported

product. Rajinder contends further that,

for the purpose of satisfying part one of

the Department’s two-part test, it

provided record evidence demonstrating

how the import duty and the duty

drawback are related to one another.

Rajinder indicates that it explained on

the record how India’s Advanced

Licensing system operates and that

India’s duty-exemption schemes are

well known by the Department and

points to several administrative reviews

involving Indian companies that

subscribe to India’s Advanced Licensing

system. In addition, Rajinder indicates

that it provided both the duty-drawback

calculation methodology it used to

calculate the adjustment and the

respective advanced licenses under

which it could import raw materials free

of duty, provided such materials were

used in the production of the exported

product.

Rajinder points to the verification

report and accompanying exhibits as

evidence of its eligibility for exemption

from customs duties. Rajinder states that

the advanced licenses state explicitly

that the respective materials would be

‘‘eligible’’ for exemption from customs

duties and that the underlying licenses

are replete with the term ‘‘Duty

Exemption.’’ Rajinder contends that the

verification team did not indicate that

additional information was necessary to

satisfy part one of the Department’s twopart test. Rajinder also argues that it

supplemented the record with the very

information that prompted the

Department to deny the claimed dutydrawback adjustment for the Final

Results of the New Shippers

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review 62 FR 47632, (September 10,

1997).

Rajinder contends further that it

satisfied part two of the Department’s

two-part test. Rajinder points to the

verification report and accompanying

exhibits which it asserts demonstrate

that it imported sufficient amounts of

hot-rolled coil and steel to qualify for

duty drawback. Rajinder refers to the

check marks and notations on the

verification exhibits that the

Department’s verifiers made which,

Rajinder asserts, is an indication that

the Department verified the quantities of

hot-rolled coil Rajinder imported.

Rajinder argues that the Department

misstated the purpose of Rajinder’s

January 20, 1998, submission of

Rajinder’s DEEC book. Rajinder

indicates that, in the preliminary

analysis memorandum, the Department

stated that the purpose of submitting the

DEEC book was to provide evidence that

sufficient imports of raw materials were

received for the final exported product.

Rajinder contends that, contrary to the

Department’s statement regarding the

purpose of the DEEC book, the actual

purpose of submitting this book was

merely to corroborate the data already

on the record. Rajinder argues that the

relevant verification exhibit already

demonstrates the sufficiency of import

quantities.

Rajinder states that it submitted the

DEEC book for the record because the

Department requested it at verification.

Rajinder points out that it explained to

the verifiers that only the completed

DEEC book, which was at that time in

the possession of the Indian Customs

Service, would satisfy the additional

information they sought.

The petitioners contend that the

Department denied Rajinder’s claimed

duty-drawback adjustment correctly

because Rajinder failed to meet either

part of the Department’s two-part test.

The petitioners assert that, despite the

fact that Rajinder was on notice from the

New Shippers Review as to the

information necessary to demonstrate its

claimed duty-drawback adjustment

adequately, Rajinder missed the

opportunities to supplement the record

with the necessary information. The

petitioners point out that, throughout

this review, the Department informed

Rajinder of its need to provide

additional information to satisfy the

two-part test. The petitioners state,

however, that in accordance with the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices 32829

Department’s regulations and practice,

Rajinder failed to provide the necessary

evidence to satisfy the requirements of

its claimed duty drawback, citing

Nachi-Fujikoshi v. U.S., 890 F. Supp.

1008, 1015 (1992).

The petitioners argue that the fact that

the Department recognizes India’s

Advanced Licensing scheme is

irrelevant to the instant case. The

petitioners contend that Rajinder merely

provided a general description of the

Advanced Licensing scheme and that

the possession of the advanced licenses

alone does not demonstrate the linkage

between the import duty and the

drawback.

The petitioners indicate their support

for the Department’s decision to require

Rajinder to provide historical

documentation demonstrating how

Rajinder received advanced licenses and

satisfied the requirements of those

licenses. The petitioners point out that

the advanced licenses stipulate the

submission of quarterly reports to the

government of India and that such

reports should provide detail of the

goods imported against the licenses. The

petitioners assert that such reports or

other similar documentation

demonstrating that Rajinder fulfilled the

obligations of the advanced license

could have been submitted as proof of

entitlement to the claimed duty

drawback. The petitioners explain

further that, because importation of raw

materials may occur before or after

exportation, historical records

documenting how the program was

applied to a specific company and

product are necessary to demonstrate

linkage. The petitioners contend that the

advanced licenses alone do not serve as

proof that the drawback was received,

but instead establish the right to import

raw materials.

The petitioners argue that Rajinder

also failed to satisfy the second part of

the Department’s two-part test. With

respect to the verification exhibit with

which Rajinder claims the Department

was satisfied, given the check marks

placed on it, the petitioners assert that

the check marks are merely indications

that the numbers on the respective

worksheets reconciled with the reported

figures. The petitioners also argue that

the record does not demonstrate

adequately that the amount of steel coil

Rajinder claims to have imported

qualified for duty-free status under the

advanced license.

In addition, the petitioners argue that,

even if the Department permits

Rajinder’s steel duty-drawback

adjustment, it should deny Rajinder’s

claim for the zinc duty-drawback

adjustment. The petitioners argue that

Rajinder did not import zinc during the

POR and, instead, used the calculation

it provided in the previous New

Shippers Review. The petitioners

contend that the zinc information

submitted in January constitutes new

information, which was illegible and

should have been submitted prior to

verification if Rajinder desired due

consideration of the information. The

petitioners contend further that Rajinder

has not provided any evidence that the

imports of zinc met the Department’s

two-part test. Specifically, the petitioner

states that Rajinder did not provide any

evidence that sufficient quantities of

zinc were imported to cover the zinc

incorporated into the pipe or that

qualifying inputs of zinc were made

within twelve months of the date of

issuance of its advanced licenses.

Department’s Position: For both steel

and zinc, we agree with the petitioners

that Rajinder has not satisfied either

part of our test. While Rajinder is

correct in stating that we found the

figures in the verification exhibits we

reviewed to be accurate, the figures did

not establish a direct link between the

import duty and the drawback Rajinder

claimed it received. Based on our

understanding of the system, as

explained at verification, the imported

goods may enter free of duties, but the

company must prove to Indian Customs

that the goods were used in a product

that was or will be exported or the

importer of the goods will be liable for

the foregone duty. This is why we

requested documentation from the

DEEC book. Without such information

there is no established link between the

import duty and the drawback.

Inasmuch as Rajinder knew that it

would not have the documents needed

to establish this link at verification,

Rajinder should have explained to us in

advance that we would not be able to

review such documents until after

verification. Rajinder’s arguments

concerning part two of the test are

irrelevant since both parts of the test

must be met in order to receive the

adjustment.

Comment 5: Rajinder contends that

the model-match methodology that the

Department employed in the

preliminary results is inaccurate and

does not provide a fair comparison

between U.S. and HM models. Rajinder

argues that it provided the Department

with the best possible matches between

HM and U.S. models sold during the

POR subject to the Department’s modelmatch hierarchy set forth in the

Department’s original questionnaire.

Rajinder argues, however, that the

Department disregarded its own

hierarchical model-match methodology

and instead grouped certain models into

‘‘families’’ based on the model’s

nominal pipe size. Rajinder contends

that the Department’s family modelmatch methodology is unfair because it

includes models that are not the most

similar to the products sold to the

United States.

Rajinder also points out that the

Department did not provide an

explanation as to why its family modelmatch methodology provides better

results and the Department did not

explain why it did not use the model

matches Rajinder provided in its

response. Rajinder asserts further that

grouping models into families has never

been employed in other standard pipe

and tube cases and was not the

approach employed in the previous

New Shippers Review in which

Rajinder participated. In addition,

Rajinder asserts that the Department’s

model-match methodology does not

provide the most similar comparisons

and is contrary to antidumping law and

to the CIT’s ruling that comparisons

should be based on the most similar

merchandise, absent identical

merchandise sold in either the home or

U.S. markets (citing Torrington Co. v.

United States, 881 F. Supp. 622, 634 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1995)).

In addition, Rajinder argues that the

Department is using only one physical

attribute, the nominal pipe size, as the

basis for model matching and is

disregarding another significant

attribute, wall thickness, which, in the

Department’s model-match hierarchy, is

one of the most important factors next

to nominal pipe size. Rajinder asserts

that matching models using only the

nominal pipe size rather than including

wall thickness as an important criterion

by which to find the most similar

matches produces an apples-to-oranges

comparison.

Rajinder asserts further that the

Department apparently selected HM

models as matches to U.S. models based

on size of the difference-in-merchandise

adjustments associated with the selected

models. Rajinder contends that

differences in costs are not physical

characteristics and that such figures

should not be relied upon for the

purpose of matching models. Moreover,

Rajinder argues that the HM models that

the Department selected as matches to

U.S. models did not produce the

smallest difference-in-merchandise

adjustments.

Rajinder also points out that pipes

sold in India are categorized by light,

medium, and heavy pipe which is

reflective of the wall thickness. Rajinder

explains that the uses of the pipes are

a direct determinant of whether light,
32830 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices

medium, or heavy pipe is necessary.

Rajinder explains further that a light

pipe cannot be compared with a

medium pipe, as was done in the

preliminary results.

For the above-mentioned reasons,

Rajinder argues that the Department

should use the models that Rajinder

selected as the most similar HM models

to the models sold in United States for

the final results of review.

The petitioners claim that the

Department’s model-match

methodology is not unreasonable and is

not contrary to the statute. The

petitioners assert that there is no reason

for the Department to alter its approach

for the final results of review. The

petitioners argue that, in accordance

with section 771(16) of the Act, the HM

models the Department selected as

potential matches meet the definition of

foreign like product. The petitioners

also argue that, although this modelmatch methodology deviates from that

employed in other standard pipe cases,

the Department has wide discretion in

determining model matches in

antidumping cases (citing Torrington

Co. v. United States, 881 F. Supp. 622

at 634 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1995); (SmithCorona v. United States, 713 F. 2d 1568,

1571 (Fed Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465

U.S. 1022(1984)). The petitioners

explain that the Department’s

methodology selects the most similar

models that match as closely as possible

the five physical characteristics in the

hierarchy, classifies models into

families on the basis of nominal pipe

size, and selects the models that

produce the smallest difference-inmerchandise adjustment. The

petitioners point out that selecting

model matches on the basis of

difference-in-merchandise takes into

account a combination of physical

characteristics and, moreover, it is in

accordance with section 771 (16)) of the

Act, which calls for finding the closest

possible match.

The petitioners contend that, although

the Department’s model-match

methodology is different from the

methodology employed in the previous

New Shippers Review and other pipe

cases, the use of this methodology in the

instant case does not preclude it from

being a reasonable model-matching

approach. The petitioners contend

further that, while controversy has

arisen in the antifriction bearings

proceedings regarding the family modelmatch methodology, such controversy is

irrelevant given that the methodology

was approved by the Court of

International Trade, citing Torrington

Co. v. United States, 881 F. Supp. 622

(CIT 1995). The petitioners note that the

Department’s model matching meets the

statutory goal of matching products with

the most similar characteristics.

The petitioners also rebut Rajinder’s

claim that the Department disregarded

wall thickness that Rajinder claims to be

the most important factor. The

petitioners point out that determining

whether certain characteristics are more

important over others has been an

ongoing controversial topic between the

Department and certain domestic

interested parties and various

respondents in other proceedings. The

petitioners note that the Department’s

methodology takes into account a

combination of physical characteristics,

including wall thickness.

In addition, the petitioners argue that

differences in cost are reflective of

differences in physical characteristics

which is the premise behind the

difference-in-merchandise adjustments.

The petitioners also contend that,

despite whether the pipe is light,

medium, or heavy, all of the products

used for comparison purposes have the

same end use—the conveyance of gases

and liquids and light structural uses.

The petitioners argue that the

Department’s hierarchical approach to

matching models that are most similar

as set forth in its original questionnaire

arbitrarily assigned a level of

importance to certain characteristics

and did not take into account

differences in physical characteristics.

The petitioners assert that a change in

any one of the characteristics included

in the hierarchy causes changes in other

characteristics included in the

hierarchy. The petitioners explain that a

change in wall thickness can alter the

thickness as well as the costs associated

with end and surface finish, both of

which are characteristics included in

the hierarchy.

The petitioners point out that, under

the hierarchical approach, the

Department would, in ascending order,

find matches at the highest level of the

hierarchy and would, thereby, disregard

any changes in characteristics at the

lower levels as a result of finding a

match at the higher level. The

petitioners argue that, in essence, this

approach may find matches at higher

levels within the hierarchy with a

higher difference-in-merchandise even

though another match might yield a

lower adjustment.

The petitioners argue that Rajinder

has not provided evidence that the

differences in wall thickness and the

claimed specialized uses of the different

wall thicknesses yield differences in

market values. The petitioners therefore

argue that, for the foregoing reasons, the

Department should maintain the modelmatch methodology it used in the

preliminary margin calculations for the

final results of review.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Rajinder in part. We agree that we

should alter the model-match

methodology from what we used in the

preliminary results, but we do not agree

that we should automatically accept the

matches that Rajinder suggested in its

response. In the preliminary results, we

matched each U.S. model to a ‘‘family’’

of home-market models.

Sections 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act

define foreign like product merchandise

as identical products or products in the

following two categories:

(B) Produced in the same country and by

the same person as the merchandise which

is the subject of the investigation, like that

merchandise in component material or

materials and in the purposes for which used

and approximately equal in commercial

value to that merchandise.

(C) Produced in the same country and by

the same person and of the same general

class or kind as the merchandise which is the

subject of the investigation, like that

merchandise in the purposes for which used,

and which the administering authority

determine may reasonably be compared with

that merchandise.

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we modified our matching

methodology and applied the criteria as

follows. We did not consider grade and

finish since those categories were the

same for all HM models. The remaining

criteria are size, wall thickness, and end

finish. For size, we agree with the

respondent, as we did in the

preliminary results, that the U.S. models

should be matched to HM models with

a size of 32 mm or 40 mm. Each of the

U.S. models fell between two HM

models with essentially equivalent

differences in wall thickness. For these

four models, we reviewed the end

finishes. All of these models had the

same end finish, so that was not a

determinant. This left two possible HM

matches for each U.S. model. For these

final results, unlike the preliminary

results, we compared the variable cost

of manufacture for all of these products

and matched those products with the

smallest differences (see analysis

memorandum dated May 20, 1998).

Comment 6: The petitioners argue that

the Department should not make a

deduction from NV for Rajinder’s

reported HM credit expenses. The

petitioners assert that, based on

Rajinder’s methodology for calculating

credit expenses, one cannot discern the

invoice against which payment was

being made because these expenses

were not calculated on an order-or

product-specific basis. The petitioners
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices 32831

* Given the lack of clarity from both parties, we

assume the comments in this section are referring

to the use of indirect-selling expenses as the

commission offset.

also note that Rajinder used an arbitrary

method for determining payment dates

based on whether a certain customer

owed Rajinder more or less than fifty

percent of its outstanding balance

which, the petitioners argue, does not

correlate to a customer’s actual payment

history. The petitioners suggest that the

Department use instead a customerspecific average credit period as it has

done in the past with cases in which a

respondent’s system utilized revolving

accounts rather than rely upon any

arbitrary method for determining

payment dates.

The petitioners also argue that

Rajinder did not provide a reliable HM

short-term interest rate. The petitioners

note that, at verification, Rajinder

provided the Department with

statements from two of its banks that

specify the short-term interest rate

charged to Rajinder. However, the

petitioners point out that Rajinder

received a number of short-term loans

from various financial institutions and

that the interest rates charged by the two

banks are not representative of the

interest rates incurred on the short-term

loans that Rajinder has outstanding with

the various other financial institutions.

The petitioners assert that Rajinder is

therefore manipulating the interest rate

used in the credit expense calculation

by providing the interest rates

selectively. The petitioners argue that,

because the cost of working capital is

fungible, the Department should

calculate an average short-term interest

rate from all short-term loans Rajinder

has outstanding with the various

financial institutions. In addition, the

petitioners contend that, because

Rajinder has failed to provide the

Department with information necessary

to calculate an average short-term

interest rate, the Department should

disallow an adjustment to NV for credit

expenses.

Rajinder argues that credit expenses

were verified with very few

discrepancies and notes that the few

discrepancies the Department found

were disadvantageous to Rajinder.

Rajinder argues, therefore, that because

the credit expense calculation was

verified and found to be accurate there

is no reason to deny an adjustment to

NV for this expense. Rajinder also

refutes the petitioners’ assertion that

Rajinder used an arbitrary method to

calculate its HM credit expenses.

Rajinder points out that the calculation

methodology was reasonable and

consistent with the manner in which

Rajinder’s customers remit payment.

Rajinder also states that petitioners’

suggested methodology is only one of

several methodologies that can be used

to calculate credit expenses. Rajinder

also argues that, if the Department

rejects Rajinder’s reported HM credit

expenses, it should provide Rajinder

with an opportunity to use a different

method.

Rajinder contends further that the

short-term interest rate was verified and

found to be accurate. Rajinder argues

that it did not select the interest rate to

be used in the calculation and there is

nothing on the record or in the

verification report or accompanying

exhibits to suggest that it is

unrepresentative of its short-term cost of

borrowing. Rajinder notes that high

interest rates are common in India,

given the rate of inflation and

devaluation. Rajinder asserts that, for

the final results of review, the

Department should accept Rajinder’s

credit expense calculation including the

short-term interest rate used in the

calculation.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Rajinder. Rajinder calculated credit

periods based on the manner in which

its payment system operates. Many

companies have revolving lines of credit

for their customers. Despite the fact that

such a system may make it difficult to

tie specific sales to subsequent

payments from the customer,

calculation of average credit periods

based on such a system is not

unreasonable. In fact, as the verification

report alludes, Rajinder’s reported

figures generally erred on the

conservative side.

We have also accepted Rajinder’s

reported interest rate. Rajinder did not,

as the petitioners suggest, supply the

verifiers with interest-rate information

selectively for two of its bank loans. The

verifiers reviewed all of Rajinder’s

outstanding loans (short-and long-term)

and traced the short-term loans to

entries in the general ledger and

Rajinder’s financial statements showing

outstanding balances and payments. In

addition, the verifiers randomly chose

two of the loans and reviewed all of the

supporting documentation from which

the interest rates were drawn. The

interest rate charged on the two loans

reviewed by the Department in detail

corresponded with the rate Rajinder

used in its calculation of credit

expenses.

Comment 7: Rajinder contends that,

while the Department deducted U.S.

selling expenses from U.S. prices, it

failed to deduct HM indirect selling

expenses from NV, creating an applesto-oranges comparison. Rajinder states

that, for the final results of review, the

Department should deduct HM indirect

selling expenses subject to the amount

permissible under the CEP-offset

provision.

The petitioners refute Rajinder’s

argument that HM indirect selling

expenses should be deducted from NV.

The petitioners argue that, because the

Department made a LOT adjustment

which accounts for differences in selling

expenses, including indirect selling

expenses, the Department cannot make

a CEP offset for HM indirect selling

expenses. The petitioners point out that,

if the Department compared sales at the

same LOT, a CEP offset could not be

performed (citing Antidumping Duties,

Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27372 (May 19,

1997)).

Department’s Position: The statute

directs us to adjust NV for HM indirect

selling expenses where we are not able

to make a LOT adjustment. See sections

773(a)(7)(A)(i) and (ii) and section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Since we made

a LOT adjustment to NV for the final

results of review, we may not deduct

HM indirect selling expenses from NV

as an offset to U.S. indirect selling

expenses.

Comment 8: The petitioners argue

that, for the final results of review, the

Department should not make a

deduction from NV for Rajinder’s

claimed HM indirect selling expenses.*

The petitioners contend that Rajinder

has not documented these selling

expenses adequately and has not

clarified its calculation of how it

allocated such expenses to black and

galvanized pipe, despite the

Department’s request for additional

information in its supplemental

questionnaire. The petitioners also

argue that company officials provided

conflicting information on this subject

at verification.

Rajinder argues that there is no basis

for disallowing a deduction from NV for

these selling expenses merely because

they were not verified. Rajinder notes

that, for those expenses that were

examined, the Department found such

expenses to be reported accurately.

Rajinder argues that it did respond to

the Department’s request for additional

information in its supplemental

questionnaire response by providing a

breakdown of the expenses attributable

to HM indirect selling expenses,

including worksheets demonstrating the

calculation of pipe based on the weight

and type of the pipe.

Department’s Position: As discussed

in our response to Comment One, we

have not accepted Rajinder’s HM
32832 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices

indirect selling expenses. Therefore, this

argument is moot.

Comment 9: The petitioners contend

that the Department should revise the

CEP-profit ratio calculated in the

preliminary results of review. The

petitioners assert that the cost of goods

sold (total costs minus the change in

inventory) should be subtracted from

the total revenues because only those

products that were sold generated

revenue. The petitioners point out that

incorporating this change into the

calculation will increase the CEP-profit

ratio considerably.

Rajinder refutes the change in the

numerator of the CEP-profit ratio that

the petitioners propose, arguing that

profit is the difference between revenue

and expenses which includes the cost

for inventory that has not yet been sold.

Rajinder contends, however, that the

CEP-profit ratio is overstated because

the Department deducted an amount for

imputed expenses incorrectly. Rajinder

also points out that the Department

deducted an incorrect figure for ‘‘Total

Costs’’ which erroneously yields a

profit, instead of a loss, for the period.

Department’s Position: We agree with

both the petitioners and Rajinder in

part. We agree that the cost of goods

sold should be subtracted from the total

revenue (see Calculation of Profit for

Constructed Export Price Transactions

Policy Bulletin, dated September 4,

1997). The calculations that we

performed added the change-ininventory figure to the total revenue

after deducting the total costs. This

calculation produces the same results

that the petitioners suggest.

We also agree with Rajinder that we

made some arithmetic errors in the

calculation. We have corrected these

errors (see analysis memorandum, dated

May 20, 1998).

Comment 10: Rajinder argues that the

Department incorrectly included

imputed credit expenses and inventory

carrying costs in the CEP-profit

calculation.

The petitioners agree with Rajinder

that the CEP-profit calculation is

incorrect and provide suggested changes

to correct the calculation.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with both the respondent and the

petitioners. The suggested approaches

blur the definition of U.S. expenses, as

defined in section 772(f)(2)(B) of the

Act, and U.S. selling expenses, as

defined in sections 772(d)(1) and (2). As

we discussed in AFBs at 2126, sections

772(f) (1) and 772(f)(2)(D) of the Act

state, the per-unit profit amount shall be

an amount determined by multiplying

the total actual profit by the applicable

percentage (ratio of total U.S. expenses

to total expenses). Specifically, the Act

defines ‘‘total actual profit’’ as the total

profit earned by the foreign producer,

exporter, and affiliated parties described

in subparagraph (C) with respect to the

sale of the merchandise for which total

expenses are determined under such

subparagraph. In accordance with the

statute, we base the calculation of the

total actual profit used in calculating the

per-unit profit amount for CEP sales on

actual revenues and expenses

recognized by the company. In

calculating the per-unit cost of the U.S.

sales, we have included net interest

expense. Therefore, we do not need to

include imputed interest expenses in

the ‘‘total actual profit’’ calculation

since we have already accounted for

actual interest in computing this

amount under section 772(f)(1) of the

Act.

When we allocated a portion of the

actual profit to each CEP sale, we have

included imputed credit and inventory

carrying costs as part of the total U.S.

expense allocation factor. This

methodology is consistent with section

772(f)(1) of the Act, which defines ‘‘total

United States Expense’’ as the total

expenses described under sections

772(d)(1) and (2). Such expenses

include both imputed credit and

inventory carrying costs. See Certain

Stainless Wire Rods from France, 61 FR

47874, 47882 (September 11, 1996).

Comment 11: Rajinder contends that,

in the Department’s recalculation of HM

imputed credit expenses, excise taxes

should not be deducted because the

amount of credit extended to the

customer is inclusive of excise tax.

The petitioners contend that the

Department should continue to exclude

Rajinder’s excise taxes in the calculation

of Rajinder’s HM imputed credit

expense calculation because, to do

otherwise, is inconsistent with and

contrary to both Department policy and

practice. The petitioners contend further

that, because the taxes are ultimately

rescinded to the government as revenue,

it does not serve the purpose of the

adjustment to price for imputed credit

expenses.

Department’s Position: We have not

deducted excise taxes in the

recalculation of HM imputed credit

expense. This tax is included in the

price Rajinder charged to the customer

and is paid to the government when the

goods are removed from the factory.

Therefore, the amount of the tax is an

imputed credit expense brought on by

the sale of the pipe and, as such, is

appropriate to include in the interest

expense calculation.

Comment 12: Rajinder contends that

the Department matched certain U.S.

sales transactions to the incorrect HM

sales transactions. Specifically, Rajinder

argues that the Department

inadvertently defined a certain

computer variable, which it used for

matching purposes, by the date of

payment. Rajinder argues that, for the

final results of review, the Department

should define the variable as the sale

date.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Rajinder and have corrected this clerical

error.

Comment 13: Rajinder contends that,

despite the Department’s inclusion of

language in the program to change the

sale dates of certain U.S. sales

transactions, the computer output

demonstrates that such changes were

not implemented. Rajinder requests that

the Department make such changes for

the final results of review.

The petitioners agree with Rajinder

that changes to the sale dates are

appropriate and provide suggestions for

those changes.

Department’s Position: We agree and

have corrected this error for the final

results (see analysis memorandum,

dated May 20, 1998).

Comment 14: Rajinder contends that

the Department inadvertently failed to

make corrections to its reported HM

shipment dates as presented at the

outset of verification. Rajinder requests

that the Department make these changes

for the final results of review because

corrections to the shipment date

ultimately affect HM prices.

Department’s Position: We agree with

respondent and have made the

necessary changes for the final results of

review.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our analysis of the

comments received and the correction

of certain inadvertent clerical errors, we

find that the following margins exist for

the period May 1, 1996, through April

30, 1997:

Manufacturer/Exporter Percentage

margin

RSL ........................................... 31.13

Lloyd’s Metals & Engineers* ..... 0.00

*This firm made no shipments of subject

merchandise to the United States during the

instant POR. Rate is from the last segment of

the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/sales.

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. For CEP sales, we divided the

total dumping margins for the reviewed

sales by the total entered value of those
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices 32833

reviewed sales for each importer/

customer. We will direct Customs to

assess the resulting percentage margin

against the entered Customs values for

the subject merchandise on each of the

importer’s/customer’s entries during the

review period. While the Department is

aware that the entered value of sales

during the POR is not necessarily equal

to the entered value of entries during

the POR, use of entered value of sales

as the basis of the assessment rate

permits the Department to collect a

reasonable approximation of the

antidumping duties which would have

been determined if the Department had

reviewed those sales of merchandise

actually entered during the POR.

To calculate the cash deposit rate for

each exporter, we divided the total

dumping margins for each exporter by

the total net value (EP or CEP) for that

exporter’s sales of subject merchandise

in the United States during the review

period. The following deposit

requirements will be effective for

shipments of subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results of

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1)

the cash deposit rate for the reviewed

companies will be the rates outlined

above; (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, a prior review, or the original

less-than-fair-value (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; and (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be 7.08

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the final determination of

sales at LTFV, as explained in the 1995/

96 New Shippers Review of this order.

See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes

and Tubes from India; Final Results of

New Shippers Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 47632,

47644 (September 10, 1997).

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also 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 the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders (APO)

of their responsibility concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1).

Timely written notification of the

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.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 8, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–15873 Filed 6–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–809]

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

From the Republic of Korea; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On December 8, 1997, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of its administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe

from the Republic of Korea. This review

covers imports of pipe from four

producers/exporters during the period

November 1, 1995 through October 31,

1996.

Based on our analysis of comments

received, these final results differ from

the preliminary results. In addition, we

continue to find for these final results

that sales of subject merchandise were

made below normal value during the

review period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia Thirumalai or Craig Matney,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, US Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4087

and 482–1778, respectively.

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 of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations refer to the

regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 353,

April 1997.

Background

This review covers four

manufacturers/exporters, i.e., Hyundai

Pipe Co. Ltd. (Hyundai), Korea Iron and

Steel Co., Ltd. (KISCO) and its affiliate

Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

(Union), SeAH Steel Corporation

(SeAH) and Shinho Steel Co., Ltd.

(Shinho), collectively referred to as ‘‘the

respondents.’’ Since the publication of

our Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review of Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Pipe from the Republic of Korea,

(Preliminary Results) 62 FR 64559

(December 8, 1997), we received revised

home market datasets from the

respondents in December 1998. We also

received case briefs from the

respondents and from the petitioners on

January 20, 1998, and rebuttal briefs on

January 30, 1998.

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this

review is circular welded non-alloy

steel pipe and tube, of circular crosssection, 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