Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Notices 20963

opportunity to request administrative

review, and no domestic interested

party objects to the Department’s intent

to revoke or terminate pursuant to this

notice, we shall conclude that the

antidumping duty orders, findings, and

suspended investigations are no longer

of interest to interested parties and shall

proceed with the revocation or

termination.

Opportunity to Object

Domestic interested parties, as

defined in § 353.2(k)(3), (4), (5), and (6)

of the Department’s regulations, may

object to the Department’s intent to

revoke these antidumping duty orders

and findings or to terminate the

suspended investigations by the last day

of May 1995. Any submission to the

Department must contain the name and

case number of the proceeding and a

statement that explains how the

objecting party qualifies as a domestic

interested party under § 353.2(k)(3), (4),

(5), and (6) of the Department’s

regulations.

Seven copies of such objections

should be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Room B–099, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230.

You must also include the pertinent

certification(s) in accordance with

§ 353.31(g) and § 353.31(i) of the

Department’s regulations. In addition,

the Department requests that a copy of

the objection be sent to Michael F.

Panfeld in Room 4203. This notice is in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(d)(4)(i).

Dated: April 18, 1995.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–10520 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–201–819]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation: Light-Walled

Rectangular Pipe and Tube From

Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dorothy Tomaszewski or Erik Warga at

(202) 482–0631 or (202) 482–0922,

Office of Antidumping Investigations,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

D.C. 20230.

INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’) are references to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the

Statute by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA).

The Petition

On March 31, 1995, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) received a

petition filed in proper form by

Southwestern Pipe, Inc. (the petitioner),

one of two regional producers of lightwalled rectangular (‘‘LWR’’) pipe and

tube in Texas. A supplement to the

petition was filed on April 13, 1995.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioner alleges that

imports of LWR pipe and tube from

Mexico are being, or are likely to be,

sold in the United States in the region

of Texas at less than fair value within

the meaning of section 731 of the Act,

and that such imports are materially

injuring, or threatening material injury

to, the regional industry in Texas.

Since petitioner is an interested party

as defined under section 771(9)(C) of the

Act, petitioner has standing to file a

petition for the imposition of

antidumping duties.

On April 17, 1995, a Mexican

producer of subject merchandise named

in the petition, Hylsa S.A. de C.V.

(‘‘HYLSA’’), submitted a request that the

Department poll all domestic producers

of subject merchandise in the United

States. According to HYLSA, the

relevant industry for purposes of

determining petitioner’s standing

should be defined as the national

industry producing the subject

merchandise (see following Section for

details on this issue).

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

The petition contains an adequate

allegation that Texas is a regional

industry for the domestic like product;

this allegation includes data on both

factors required by section 771(4)(C) of

the Act. Under section 732(c)(4)(C), if

the petitioner properly alleges that the

industry is a regional industry, the

Department shall determine whether the

petition has been filed by or on behalf

of the industry by applying the

requirements set forth in the Act on the

basis of the production in the region.

Therefore, the Department has evaluated

industry support for the petition based

upon production in the region.

Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act

requires that the Department’s industry

support determination, which is to be

made before the initiation of the

investigation, be based on whether a

minimum percentage of the relevant

industry supports the petition. A

petition meets the minimum

requirements if (1) domestic producers

or workers who support the petition

account for at least 25 percent of the

total production of the domestic like

product; and (2) those domestic

producers or workers expressing

support account for more than 50

percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition.

The petitioner, one of two known

regional producers of the domestic like

product, accounts for more than 50

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product in the region as

defined in the petition. The other

known producer in the region has

informed the Department that it

supports this antidumping petition.

Accordingly, the Department

determines that this petition is

supported by the regional industry in

Texas.

Scope of the Investigation

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is certain light-walled

welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes,

of rectangular (including square) cross

section, having a wall thickness of less

than 4mm (‘‘LWR’’), regardless of

specification (ASTM, proprietary, or

other). These LWR pipes and tubes are

supplied with rectangular cross sections

ranging from 0.375×0.625 inch to 2×6

inches or with square sections ranging

from 0.375 to 4 inches.

The LWR pipe and tube that are the

subject of this petition are currently

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

heading 7306.60.50.00. Although the

HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

investigation is dispositive.

Export Price and Normal Value

Export price was based on fourth

quarter 1994 (1) average c.i.f. unit value

of U.S. imports from Mexico, and (2)

prices from a salesman’s call sheets

recording sales lost to Mexican

competitors. The unit values based on

U.S. imports from Mexico were reduced

for foreign inland freight to derive exfactory prices. The prices based on

‘‘lost’’ sales were reduced for the

following costs: exporter’s mark-up

costs, broker commissions, U.S. import
20964 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Notices

duties, foreign inland freight and U.S.

freight.

The home market price was based on

tax-inclusive price quotations from

Mexican producers to a home market

customer in December 1994. The

petitioner adjusted the FOB warehouse

prices for Mexico’s value added tax.

The petitioner based the normal value

on constructed value (‘‘CV’’) in

accordance with section 773(a)(4)

because it asserts that the Mexican

home market price provided in the

petition represented sales that were

made below the cost of production

(‘‘COP’’) and, therefore, was not an

appropriate basis for calculating normal

value.

The components of COP are cost of

manufacture (‘‘COM’’) and selling,

general and administrative expenses

(‘‘SG&A’’). The petitioner calculated

COM based on its own production

experience, adjusted for known

differences between costs incurred to

produce LWR pipe and tube in the

United States and production costs

incurred for the merchandise in Mexico.

To calculate SG&A expenses, including

interest expense, the petitioner relied on

data from the 1993 financial statement

of a Mexican pipe and tube producer

not named as a respondent in the

petition. Petitioner maintained in its

allegation that Mexican producers

named as respondents in the petition

did not publish financial statements and

that the financial statements used to

calculate SG&A expense provided the

only available data for this expense.

The allegation that the Mexican

producers are selling the foreign like

product in their home market at prices

below COP is based upon a comparison

of the adjusted home market price with

the calculated COP. Based on this

information, we find reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that sales of the

foreign like product were made at prices

below COP in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly,

the Department will initiate a cost of

production investigation.

Therefore, for the purposes of this

initiation, we are accepting the

petitioner’s estimate of CV, as adjusted

by the Department for profit, as the

appropriate basis for Mexican normal

value. The petitioner based CV on its

COP methodology, described above,

adding an amount for profit to arrive at

a total CV. Rather than use the Mexican

pipe and tube producer’s 1993 financial

statements to compute profit, the

petitioner calculated profit on the basis

of public financial data for a Mexican

steel producer. It did so because the

Mexican pipe producer had incurred a

loss in that year. Consistent with section

773(e) of the Act, the Department

revised the profit figure included in the

CV to be zero, the actual profit for the

one Mexican company whose

operations were limited to the

production of the foreign-like product.

Based on comparisons of export

prices to CV, the recalculated dumping

margins range from 14.08 to 23.38

percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioner, there is reason to believe that

imports of LWR pipe and tube from

Mexico are being, or likely to be, sold

at less than fair value. If it becomes

necessary at a later date to consider the

petition as a source of facts available

under section 776 of the Act, we may

further review the calculations.

Initiation of Investigation

We have examined the petition on

LWR pipe and tube and have found that

it meets the requirements of section 732

of the Act, including the requirements

concerning allegations of material injury

or threat of material injury to a regional

industry in a domestic-like product by

reason of the complained-of imports,

allegedly sold at less than fair value.

Therefore, we are initiating an

antidumping duty investigation to

determine whether imports of LWR pipe

and tube from Mexico are being, or are

likely to be, sold at less than fair value

on a regional basis. Unless extended, we

will make our preliminary

determination by September 7, 1995.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, copies of the

public version of the petition have been

provided to the representatives of the

government of Mexico. We will attempt

to provide copies of the public version

of the petition to all the exporters

named in the petition.

ITC Notification

We have notified the International

Trade Commission (ITC) of our

initiation, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine by May 15,

1995, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of LWR pipe and

tube from Mexico are causing material

injury, or threaten to cause material

injury to the regional industry. A

negative ITC determination will result

in the investigation being terminated;

otherwise, this investigation will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 732(c)(2) of the Act.

Dated: April 20, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–10524 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[C–331–601]

Cut Flowers From Ecuador;

Amendment to Notice of Determination

To Revoke Countervailing Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amendment to notice of

determination to revoke countervailing

duty order.

SUMMARY: On April 12, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published a notice of

determination to revoke the

countervailing duty order on cut flowers

from Ecuador (60 FR 18582). That notice

stated, in error, that the effective date of

revocation was April 12, 1995. We are

correcting that clerical error; the

effective date of revocation is January 1,

1995.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Albright or Maria MacKay, Office

of Countervailing Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202)482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Clerical Error

We are correcting the following

clerical error in the Department’s April

12, 1995 determination to revoke the

countervailing duty order on cut flowers

from Ecuador:

The section which reads ‘‘EFFECTIVE

DATE: April 12, 1995’’ is amended to

read ‘‘EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1995.’’

This notice is in accordance with 19

CFR 355.25(d)(4)(iii).

Dated: April 21, 1995.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–10521 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Determination Not To Revoke

Countervailing Duty Orders

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.