Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices 10061

Agency Approval Number: 0607–

0104.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Burden: 3,363.

Number of Respondents: 3,363.

Avg Hours Per Response: 5 minutes.

Needs and Uses: The Bureau of the

Census conducts the Advance Monthly

Retail Sales Survey to collect monthly

sales data from a national sample of

retail establishments on a timely basis

in order to provide an early indication

of changes in current retail trade activity

at the United States level. Policy makers

such as the Federal Reserve Board need

to have the most timely estimates in

order to anticipate economic trends and

act accordingly. The Bureau of the

Census releases the advance sales

estimates 9 days after the end of the data

month in a press release called

‘‘Advance Monthly Retail Sales Report.’’

Without these early estimates, the next

available measure of retail sales is the

‘‘preliminary’’ estimate released about

40 days after the data month. Other

users of the advance sales estimates

include the Council of Economic

Advisors, Bureau of Economic Analysis,

Federal Reserve Board, other

government agencies, and businesses.

Affected Public: Businesses or other

for–profit organizations.

Frequency: Monthly.

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Maria Gonzalez,

(202) 395–7313.

Copies of the above information

collection proposal can be obtained by

calling or writing Gerald Tache ́, DOC

Forms Clearance Officer, (202) 482–

3271, Department of Commerce, room

5312, 14th and Constitution Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collection should be sent to

Maria Gonzalez, OMB Desk Officer,

room 10201, New Executive Office

Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: February 16, 1995.

Gerald Tache ́,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office

of Management and Organization.

[FR Doc. 95–4374 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–07–F

International Trade Administration

[A–412–810]

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products From the

United Kingdom; Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by a

manufacturer/exporter, United

Engineering Steels Limited (UES), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting the first

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain hotrolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products (lead and bismuth steel) from

the United Kingdom (U.K.). The review

covers one manufacturer/exporter, UES,

and entries of the subject merchandise

into the United States during the period

September 28, 1992 through February

28, 1994. We have preliminarily

determined that sales have been made

below the foreign market value (FMV).

If these preliminary results are adopted

in our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to

assess antidumping duties equal to the

difference between the United States

price (USP) and the FMV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nooshen Amiri or Maureen Flannery,

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 4, 1994, the Department

published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (59

FR 10368) a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request an Administrative Review’’ of

the antidumping duty order on lead and

bismuth steel from the U.K. (58 FR

15324). On March 31, 1994, a

manufacturer/exporter, UES, requested

that we conduct an administrative

review in accordance with section

353.22(a) of the Department’s

regulations (19 CFR 353.22(a)). We

published the notice of initiation of the

antidumping duty administrative review

on April 15, 1994 (59 FR 18099),

covering the period September 28, 1992

through February 28, 1994. The

Department has now conducted the

review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are hot-rolled bars and rods of nonalloy

or other alloy steel, whether or not

descaled, containing by weight 0.03

percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent

of bismuth, in coils or cut lengths, and

in numerous shapes and sizes. Excluded

from the scope of this review are other

alloy steels (as defined by the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72, note

1 (f)). except steels classified as other

alloy steels by reason of containing by

weight 0.4 percent or more of lead, or

0.1 percent or more of bismuth,

tellurium, or selenium. Also excluded

are semi-finished steels and flat-rolled

products. Most of the products covered

in this review are provided for under

subheadings 7213.20.00 and

7214.30.00.00 of the HTSUS. Small

quantities of these products may also

enter the United States under the

following HTSUS subheadings:

7213.31.30.00, 60.00; 7213.39.00.30,

00.60, 00.90; 7214.40.00.10, 00.30,

00.50; 7214.50.00.10, 00.30,

00.50;7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; and

7228.30.80.00. HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written product

description remains dispositive.

This review covers sales of the subject

merchandise manufactured by UES and

entered into the United States during

the period September 28, 1992 through

February 28, 1994.

United States Price

The Department used purchase price

(PP), as defined in section 772 of the

Act, in calculating USP for UES because

all sales were made directly to unrelated

parties prior to importation into the

United States. USP was based on

packed, delivered prices to customers in

the United States. We made deductions,

where applicable, for cash discounts,

rebates, foreign inland freight, FOB

charges in the U.K., ocean freight,

marine insurance, U.S. Customs duties

and merchandise processing fees, harbor

maintenance fees, brokerage and

handling charges, and U.S. inland

freight charges. We also made an

adjustment for invoice corrections

(billing adjustments) made after

shipment. While UES’s shipments to the

Untied States are transported by a

related carrier, British Steel Shipping,
10062 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices

UES established that the related carrier

charges UES arm’s-length rates.

Therefore, we used actual ocean freight

rates reported.

We adjusted USP for value-added

taxes (VAT) in accordance with our

practice as outlined in Silicomanganese

from Venezuela, Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, 59 FR 31204 (June 17, 1994).

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

We used the date of shipment as the

date of sale for both U.S. sales and home

market sales because a substantial

percentage of both U.S. orders and home

market orders were significantly

amended subsequent to the original

purchase order, and the price and

quantity were set on the date of

shipment.

Foreign Market Value

In calculating FMV for UES, the

Department used home market sales or

constructed value (CV), as defined in

section 773 of the Act.

To determine whether there were

sufficient sales of lead and bismuth steel

in the home market to serve as the basis

for calculating FMV, we compared the

volume of home market sales to the

volume of third country sales, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the

Act. We found that sales in the home

market constituted a sufficient basis for

FMV, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.48(a).

Many of UES’s home market sales

were made to related customers. In

order to determine whether sales to

related parties might be appropriate to

use as the basis of FMV, the Department

compares prices of those sales to prices

to unrelated parties, on a model-bymodel basis. When possible, the

Department uses unrelated party sales at

the same level of trade as the related

party sales for this comparison. UES did

not have sales to unrelated customers in

the home market at the same level of

trade and in similar quantities as those

to related customers. In the home

market, UES sold to related cold

finishers and unrelated resellers. Home

market sales to related cold finishers

were generally large quantity sales,

while home market sales to unrelated

resellers were generally small quantity

sales. In the U.S. market, UES sold to

unrelated cold finishers in large

quantities.

UES claimed that its home market

sales to related finishers were made at

arm’s-length prices, and that any price

differences among customers reflect

market factors and the fact that highvolume, long-term customers are able to

negotiate lower prices than smaller

customers, related or not. In support of

its argument, UES submitted a

comparison of related prices with

unrelated prices, allegedly showing that

UES’s related-party prices satisfy the

Department’s customary arm’s-length

test. UES also submitted an analysis of

prices to a party that was acquired by

UES during the period of review, in

support of its contention that

relationship does not determine price

levels. Finally, UES submitted a number

of sample invoices it issued to an

unrelated third-country customer,

which it claimed was comparable in

size and purchase volume with UES’s

major related home market customers,

to show that its related-party prices

were market-based.

Petitioner, Inland Steel Bar Company,

asserted that home market sales to

related parties were not made on an

arm’s-length basis and that UES’s

analysis did not take into account all

customer rebates and discounts.

Petitioner further asserted that UES

failed to perform its arm’s-length test on

a model-specific basis. Regarding the

comparison of prices paid by a party

before it was acquired by UES with the

prices paid after it was acquired,

petitioner claimed that the comparison

was inapposite, as market pricing

conditions changed significantly since

the company was acquired, and home

market prices increased for all

customers. Regarding UES’s comparison

of prices in a third-country market with

prices to related customers in the home

market, petitioner claimed that prices

charged by UES in third countries have

no bearing on this review because

market conditions in third countries

vary from those in the home market.

We agree with petitioner that

differences in market conditions across

countries or time periods could

invalidate certain of UES’s analyses. We

further agree with petitioner that UES’s

analysis of data from this review fails to

provide an accurate assessment of

whether its related-party sales were

made at arm’s length because it did not

account for certain rebates and it did not

perform its arm’s-length test on a model

group-by-model group basis.

For these reasons, we used the only

information that was available in the

record, we compared related-customer

sales with unrelated-customer sales on a

model group-by-model group basis

regardless of level of trade. When sales

to related customers were made at

arm’s-length prices, we included them

in the calculation of FMV. UES made no

claim for an adjustment due to

differences in quantities. We invite

comments on the issue of how to

perform an arm’s-length test in cases

such as this, where home market sales

to related and unrelated customers are

made at different levels of trade and in

different quantities.

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.58

and 353.55, we compared U.S. sales to

home market sales made at the same

level of trade, and in similar commercial

quantities, where possible. That is, we

compared U.S. sales of 25 metric tons

(MT) or more with home market sales of

25 MT or more, and U.S. sales of less

than 25 MT with home market sales of

less than 25 MT, because surcharges

apply to home market sales of less than

25 MT, but not to home market sales of

25 MT or more. Quantity surcharges do

not apply to any U.S. sales.

Because the Department found sales

at less than their cost of production

(COP) during the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation, in accordance

with our standard practice, we found

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that UES had made sales at prices below

its COP in the home market during the

period of review (POR). Thus, in

accordance with section 773(b) of the

Act, we investigated whether UES had

home market sales that were made at

less than their COP over an extended

period of time, and in substantial

quantities during this POR.

To determine whether home market

prices were below the COP, we

calculated the COP based on the sum of

UES’s cost of materials, fabrication,

general expenses, and packing, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.51(c). We

made the following adjustments to

UES’s reported costs: (1) we increased

cost of manufacturing for labor-related

expenses; and (2) we increased general

and administrative expenses for costs

attributed to discontinued operations.

The latter were part of UES’s general

and administrative expenses that UES

had failed to include in its reported

costs. We compared home market

selling prices, net of movement charges,

rebates, and invoice corrections, to each

product’s COP. We found that certain

sales were made at prices below the

COP.

To determine whether the below-cost

sales were made in substantial

quantities over an extended period of

time, we applied our following standard

practice. If over 90 percent of a UES’s

sales of a given model were at prices

above the COP, we did not disregard

any below-cost sales because we

determined that the below-cost sales

were not made in substantial quantities

over an extended period of time. If

between 10 and 90 percent of UES’s

sales of a given model were at prices

above the COP, we disregarded only the

below-cost sales, if we found that these
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices 10063

had been made over an extended period

of time. Where we found that more than

90 percent of a UES’s sales were at

prices below the COP over an extended

period of time, we disregarded all sales

for that model and calculated FMV

based on CV.

To determine if sales below cost were

made over an extended period of time,

we compared the number of months in

which sales below cost had occurred for

a particular model to the number of

months in which the model was sold. If

the model was sold in three or fewer

months, we did not find that below-cost

sales were made over an extended

period of time unless there were sales

below cost of that model in each month.

If a model was sold in more than three

months, we did not find that below-cost

sales were made over an extended

period of time unless there were sales

below cost in at least three of the

months in which the model was sole.

See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings from

Japan, Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR

64720 (Dec. 9, 1993). See also

Antifriction Bearings from France, et al.,

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 9463

(Feb. 28, 1994).

For those models for which there was

an adequate number of sales at prices

above the COP, we based FMV on home

market prices to related and unrelated

purchasers, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.45(a). We used prices to related

purchasers only if such prices were

made at arm’s length (see arm’s-length

discussion above). We calculated FMV

based on packed, delivered prices. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

for rebates and invoice corrections.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B) of the

Act, and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made

circumstance-of-sale adjustments, where

appropriate, for differences in credit

expenses, warranty expenses,

warehousing expenses, inland freight,

and commissions. We also made a

circumstance-of-sale adjustment for

differences in credit insurance

expenses. Credit insurance charges for

U.S. sales were assessed on a sale-bysale basis, while in the home market, a

single amount was charged for

insurance, regardless of the level of

sales. We therefore preliminarily

determine as we determined in the final

determination of sales at LTFV for this

case, that credit insurance is a direct

expense in the U.S. market, and an

indirect expense in the home market.

Accordingly, we made this adjustment

by adding the amount of credit

insurance assessed on each U.S. sale to

the FMV. When commissions were paid

on the U.S. sale and not on the home

market sale, we made an adjustment for

indirect selling expenses in the home

market to offset the commissions in the

U.S. market.

Because the home market prices were

reported net of VAT, we added to the

home market price the amount of VAT

incurred on each individual home

market sale.

Where appropriate, we made further

adjustments to FMV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, in accordance with 19

CFR 353.57.

Petitioner argued against using

differences in ‘‘residuals,’’ or trace

elements, as a criterion in determining

whether home market merchandise was

most similar to merchandise sold to the

United States. However, product

differences due to residuals are

commercially significant and not

incidental, as they are designed into the

product. Therefore, we continued to

consider residuals in model matching,

as we did in the LTFV investigation of

this case.

For those models without an adequate

number of sales made at prices above

the COP, in accordance with section

773(b) of the Act, we based FMV on CV.

We calculated the CV based on the sum

of the cost of materials, fabrication,

general expenses, U.S. packing cost, and

profit, in accordance with section 773(e)

of the Act. We adjusted UES’s CV data

in the same manner as we adjusted its

COP data as discussed above. In

accordance with section 773(e)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act, we included in CV the

greater of the company’s reported

general expenses or the statutory

minimum of ten percent of the cost of

manufacture (COM). For profit we used

the actual profit earned by UES where

the actual figure was higher than the

statutory minimum of eight percent of

the sum of COM and general expenses,

or the statutory minimum of eight

percent where the actual profit was

lower, in accordance with section

773(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. We made

circumstance-of-sale adjustments, where

appropriate, for differences in direct

selling expenses, including credit, credit

insurance, warranty, inland freight, and

policy stock warehousing.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions based

on the official exchange rates in effect

on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified

by the Federal Reserve Bank of New

York.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by respondent by using standard

verification procedures, including the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original source documentation

containing relevant information.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following dumping margin exists for the

period September 28, 1992 through

February 28, 1994.

Manufacturing/exporter Period of review Margin

United Engineering

Steels Ltd.

(UES) ........ 9/28/92–2/28/94 4.03

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 10 days of publication of

this notice. Any hearing will be held 44

days after the date of publication of this

notice, or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the publication date

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to

issues raised in the case briefs, may be

filed not later than 37 days after the date

of publication of this notice. The

Department will publish a notice of the

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the result of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

case briefs.

The following deposit requirements

shall be effective for all shipments of the

subject merchandise that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse for

consumption, on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

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

deposit rates for the reviewed company

shall be those rates established in the

final results of this review; (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 LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate shall be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review,

the cash deposit rate will be 25.82

percent, the all others rate established in

the LTFV investigation.
10064 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

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

will result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

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

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

CFR 353.22.

Dated: February 15, 1995.

Paul L. Joffe,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–4456 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–583–815]

Notice of Amended Final

Determination and Antidumping Duty

Order: Certain Welded Stainless Steel

Pipe From the Republic of Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Beck, Office of Antidumping Duty

Investigations, Import Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–3464.

Scope of Order

The merchandise subject to this

amended final determination and

antidumping duty order is welded

austenitic stainless steel pipe (WSSP)

that meets the standards and

specifications set forth by the American

Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) for the welded form of

chromium-nickel pipe designated

ASTM A–312. The merchandise covered

by the scope of the investigation also

includes austenitic welded stainless

steel pipes made according to the

standards of other nations which are

comparable to ASTM A–312.

WSSP is produced by forming

stainless steel flat-rolled products into a

tubular configuration and welding along

the seam. WSSP is a commodity product

generally used as a conduit to transmit

liquids or gases. Major applications for

WSSP include, but are not limited to,

digester lines, blow lines,

pharmaceutical lines, petrochemical

stock lines, brewery process and

transport lines, general food processing

lines, automotive paint lines and paper

process machines.

Imports of WSSP are currently

classifiable under the following HTSUS

subheadings: 7306.40.1000,

7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5015,

7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5065, and

7306.40.5085. Although these

subheadings include both pipes and

tubes, the scope of this investigation is

limited to welded austenitic stainless

steel pipes. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

investigation is dispositive.

Background

On November 4, 1992, the Department

of Commerce made its final

determination that certain WSSP from

the Republic of Korea (Korea) were

being sold at less than fair value (57 FR

53693, November 12, 1992).

On October 7, 1993, the CIT, in

Federal-Mogul Corp. and the Torrington

Co. v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391

(CIT 1993) (Federal-Mogul), rejected the

Department’s methodology for

calculating an addition to United States

price (USP) under section 772(d)(1)(C)

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act), to account for taxes that the

exporting country would have assessed

on the merchandise had it been sold in

the home market. The CIT held that the

addition to USP under section

772(d)(1)(C) of the Act should be the

result of applying the foreign market tax

rate to the price of the United States

merchandise at the same point in the

chain of commerce that the foreign

market tax was applied to foreign

market sales. Federal-Mogul, 834 F.

Supp. at 1397.

On November 18, 1993, the CIT, in

Avesta Sheffield, Inc., et al. v. United

States, Slip Op. 93–217, Court No. 93–

01–00062 remanded the final

determination of WSSP from Korea to

the Department for recalculation. In

Avesta, the CIT remanded the

Department’s final determination to

recalculate foreign market value (FMV)

with no circumstance of sale adjustment

for value added tax and to reconsider

the Department’s VAT U.S. price

methodology for Sammi Metal Products

Co., Ltd. and Pusan Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.

(Slip Op. 93–217 at 17).

Final Remand Results

In accordance with the Avesta and

Federal-Mogul decisions, we conformed

our tax methodology to the instructions

of the CIT, and adjusted U.S. price for

tax by multiplying the Korean tax rate

by the price of the U.S. merchandise at

the point in the U.S. chain of commerce

that is analogous to the point in the

Korean chain of commerce at which the

Korean government applies the

consumption tax.

In this investigation, the tax levied on

the subject merchandise in Korea is 10

percent. We calculated the appropriate

tax adjustment to be 10 percent of the

price of the U.S. merchandise reflected

on the invoice at the time of sale

(which, in this case, is the point in the

U.S. chain of commerce that is

analogous to the point in the Korean

market chain of commerce at which the

Korean government applies the

consumption tax). We then added this

amount to the U.S. price. We also

calculated the amount of the tax

adjustment that was due solely to the

inclusion of expenses in the original tax

base that are later deducted from the

price to calculate USP (i.e., 10 percent

of the sum of any adjustments, expenses

and charges that were deducted from

the price of the U.S. merchandise). We

reduced this tax adjustment to take into

account the adjustment to U.S. price for

duty drawback (i.e., 10 percent of the

duty drawback amount that was

excluded from the tax base). We

deducted this amount after all other

additions and deductions had been

made. By making this additional tax

adjustment, we avoid a distortion that

would cause the creation of a dumping

margin even when pre-tax dumping is

zero.

We included in FMV the amount of

the consumption tax collected in the

Korean home market. We also

calculated the amount of the tax that

was due solely to the inclusion of

expenses in the original tax base that are

later deducted from home market price

to calculate FMV (i.e., 10 percent of the

sum of any adjustments, expenses,

charges, and offsets that were deducted

from the home market price). We

deducted this amount after all other

additions and deductions were made.

By making this additional tax

adjustment, we avoid a distortion that

would cause the creation of a dumping

margin even when pre-tax dumping is

zero. In addition, we calculated a readjustment of the amount of tax to take

into account the amount of packing

expenses added to FMV (i.e., 10 percent

of the packing expenses).