[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18375-18377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10113]



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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-549-502]


Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from 
Thailand; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: On January 19, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the final results of its administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel 
pipes and tubes from Thailand (61 FR 1328). On February 2, 1996, Saha 
Thai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Saha Thai), the sole respondent covered by 
this review, filed a timely allegation of clerical error regarding 
calculation of the cash deposit rate. Petitioners filed a timely reply 
to respondent's clerical error allegation on February 9, 1996. Upon 
review of these submissions, we have determined that the Department 
made a clerical error when it stated in the final results that ``the 
countervailing duty review for the period January 1, 1993, through 
December 31, 1993, has not yet been completed.'' Id. at 1338. It is 
because of

[[Page 18376]]

this clerical error that the Department did not adjust United States 
price (USP) pursuant to section 772 (d)(1)(D) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act) for countervailing duties attributable to 
export subsidies imposed on the subject merchandise. We are publishing 
this amendment to the final results of review in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.28(c).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Hanley or Zev Primor, Office of 
Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3058/4114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published the order on certain circular welded 
carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand on March 11, 1986 (51 FR 
8341). The Department published the preliminary results of this review 
on November 22, 1994 (59 FR 60128), and the final results of review on 
January 19, 1996 (61 FR 1328).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and the 
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this administrative review are shipments of 
certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The 
subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, 
but not exceeding 16 inches. These products, which are commonly 
referred to in the industry as ``standard pipe'' or ``structural 
tubing,'' are hereinafter designated as ``pipe and tube.'' The 
merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 
item numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 
7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090. The item numbers are 
provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Service purposes. The written 
description remains dispositive as to the scope of the order.
    The review period is March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993. This 
review involves one company, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd. (Saha 
Thai).

Ministerial Error in Final Results of Review

    Saha Thai alleges that the Department committed a clerical error by 
failing to recognize that both countervailing duty reviews (1992 and 
1993) that cover the antidumping period of review (March 1, 1992 
through February 28, 1993) were completed prior to the completion of 
this review. As a result, Saha Thai alleges, the Department had the 
information to adjust USP (pursuant to section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act) 
to account for countervailing duties in its margin calculations prior 
to issuing the antidumping final results, but failed to do so.
    Petitioners agree that the Department committed an error by stating 
that the 1993 countervailing duty review had yet to be completed. 
However, petitioners claim that the Department clearly stated in its 
final results that the U.S. Customs Service would adjust the 
antidumping duty cash deposit rate established in this review by the 
current countervailing duty cash deposit rate in effect at the time 
entries are made. Therefore, petitioners claim that this is a 
methodological rather than clerical issue, and oppose any adjustment to 
USP for countervailing duties imposed.
    We agree with Saha Thai that the Department made a clerical error 
in its final results by stating that ``the countervailing duty review 
for the period January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993 has not yet 
been completed'' (61 FR 1338). In fact the final results of the 1993 
countervailing duty review were published in the Federal Register on 
August 23, 1995 (60 FR 43773). Therefore, at the time it issued the 
final results of this review on January 19, 1996, the Department had 
the information necessary to adjust USP upward for countervailing 
duties attributable to export subsidies imposed on the merchandise as 
required by section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.
    Further, we disagree with petitioners that this is a methodological 
issue. The Department's unintentional error was clearly a ministerial 
one within the meaning of section 353.28(d) of the Department's 
regulations. 19 CFR 353.28(d). The statute clearly instructs the 
Department to adjust USP for countervailing duties imposed on 
merchandise subject to an antidumping duty review that are attributable 
to export subsidies. In this review the Department mistakenly concluded 
that it did not have the complete information to make such an 
adjustment, and therefore stated that it would instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to adjust the antidumping duty cash deposit rate by the 
countervailing duty rate currently in effect. Because it is now clear 
that the information necessary to make the adjustment was available 
before completion of the final results, failure to make the adjustment 
is a clerical error.

Final Results of Review

    Based upon correction of the ministerial error described above, we 
determine that a margin of 17.28 percent exists for Saha Thai for the 
period March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993.
    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated 
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of these final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of pipe and tube from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act, and will remain in effect 
until the final results of the next administrative review: (1) the cash 
deposit rate for Saha Thai will be 17.28 percent; (2) for previously 
investigated companies not named above, the cash deposit 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, or the 
original 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 be the ``all others'' rate 
established in the final notice of the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation of this case, in accordance with the U.S. Court of 
International Trade's decisions in Floral Trade Council v. United 
States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) and Federal Mogul Corporation and 
Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993). The 
all others rate is 15.67 percent. 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 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.

[[Page 18377]]

    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 amendment of final results of review and notice are in 
accordance with section 751(e) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(e)) 
and 19 CFR 353.28(c).

    Dated: April 11, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-10113 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P