24274 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices

Department will not decline to consider

information that is submitted by an

interested party and is necessary to the

determination but does not meet all the

applicable requirements established by

the Department if the information is not

so incomplete that it cannot serve as a

reliable basis for reaching the applicable

determination.

At verification, we discovered

numerous errors in the respondent’s

reported information. For example, the

vast majority of the pre-selected and

surprise sales contained discrepancies.

While many of these errors may be

corrected, the number of errors

discovered draw into question the

completeness and accurateness of

respondent’s remaining sales (i.e., the

sales not specifically reviewed at

verification). Additionally, we

discovered that the respondent did not

report certain home market and U.S.

sales and incorrectly reported the sales

price for certain U.S. sales. Based on

these errors and others discussed in the

verification report, we find that the

respondent’s response is so incomplete

that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for

this determination. Because the

information cannot be verified, section

776(a) requires us to use the facts

otherwise available.

As facts available, we are basing the

respondent’s margin on the average

margin calculated in the petition. We

are using the petition rates because this

is the only information on the record

which could form the basis for a

dumping margin (see ‘‘Facts Available’’

section above).

The respondent has been fully

cooperative in the investigation, as

noted above. Also, the errors discovered

at verification do not indicate that the

respondent withheld or misreported

information to ‘‘obtain a more favorable

result.’’ SAA at 870. Rather, some of the

errors hurt the respondent while others

helped it. Therefore, we have used the

average margin contained in the

petition, rather than the highest margin.

The Department’s practice has been to

assign the highest margin contained in

the petition only where the respondent

was found to have been uncooperative.

See Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Oil Country Tubular

Goods from Italy (60 FR 33558, 33559,

June 28, 1995).

Because we are basing our final

determination on the facts available, all

other interested party comments are

moot.

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation

In accordance with section

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing

the Customs Service to continue to

suspend liquidation of all entries of

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe

from South Africa, as defined in the

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section of this

notice, that are entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse for consumption, on or

after November 30, 1995, the date of

publication of our preliminary

determination in the Federal Register.

The Customs Service shall require a

cash deposit or posting of a bond equal

to the estimated amount by which the

normal value exceeds the export price,

as shown below. In accordance with

section 733(d) of the Act, the

suspension of liquidation based on the

Department’s preliminary determination

may not remain in effect for more than

six months (including the statutorily

permissible extension). In accordance

with this provision, the suspension of

liquidation will remain in effect until

May 28, 1996.

The weighted-average dumping

margin is as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin percentage

All exporters .............................. 117.66

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. As our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine, within 45 days, whether

these imports are causing material

injury, or threat of material injury, to an

industry in the United States. If the ITC

determines that material injury, or

threat of material injury, does not exist,

the proceeding will be terminated and

all securities posted will be refunded or

canceled. If the ITC determines that

such injury does exist, the Department

will issue an antidumping duty order

directing Customs officials to assess

antidumping duties on all imports of the

subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the effective

date of the suspension of liquidation.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act.

Dated: May 6, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11940 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–485–804]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Circular

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From

Romania

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 14, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magd Zalok or John Beck, Office of

Antidumping Investigations, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4162 or (202) 482–

3464, respectively.

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 Act

by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Final Determination

As explained in the memoranda from

the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration dated November 22,

1995, and January 11, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) has exercised its discretion

to toll all deadlines for the duration of

the partial shutdowns of the Federal

Government from November 15 through

November 21, 1995, and December 16,

1995, through January 6, 1996. Thus, the

deadline for the final determination in

this investigation has been extended by

28 days, i.e., one day for each full or

partial day the Department was closed.

As such, the deadline for this final

determination is no later than May 6,

1996.

We determine that circular welded

non-alloy steel pipe (pipe) from

Romania is being sold in the United

States at less than fair value (LTFV), as

provided in section 735 of the Act. The

estimated margins are shown in the

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of

this notice.

Case History

Since the preliminary determination

of November 21, 1995 (60 FR 61529,

November 30, 1995), the following

events have occurred:
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices 24275

1Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, Sawhill

Tubular Division—Armco, Inc., LTV Steel Tubular

Products Company, Sharon Tube Company, Laclede

Steel Company, Wheatland Tube Company and

Century Tube Corporation.

In February 23, 1996, the respondents,

Tepro S.A. (Tepro) (the producer of the

subject merchandise), Metagrimex S.A.

(Metagrimex), Matalexportimport S.A.

(Metalexportimport) and Metanef S.A.

(Metanef) submitted additional publicly

available published information (PAPI)

pertaining to surrogate values. On

March 1, 1996, the petitioners 1

commented on the respondents’ PAPI.

In March 1996, we verified the

questionnaire responses to Tepro,

Metagrimex and Metalexportimport.

The third exporter, Metanef, did not

permit the Department to verify its

questionnaire responses.

The petitioners and respondents

submitted case and rebuttal briefs on

April 12 and 17, 1996, respectively.

Additional comments were requested by

the Department and submitted by the

petitioners and respondents on April 19

and 23, 1996, respectively.

Scope of Investigation

The following scope language reflects

certain modifications from the notice of

the preliminary determination. We

clarified the paragraph beginning ‘‘The

scope specifically includes * * *’’ for use

and presumed use language.

For purpose of this investigation,

circular welded non-alloy steel pipes

(standard pipes) are all pipes and tubes,

of circular cross-section, not more than

406.4 mm (16 inches) in outside

diameter, regardless of wall thickness,

surface finish (black, galvanized, or

painted), end finish (plain end, bevelled

end, threaded, or threaded and

coupled), or industry specification

(ASTM, proprietary, or other) used in

standard or structural pipe applications.

The scope specifically includes, but is

not limited to, all pipe produced to the

ASTM A–53, ASTM A–120, ASTM A–

135, ASTM A–795, and BS–1387

specifications, regardless of use. It also

includes any pipe multiple-stencilled or

multiple-certified to one of the abovelisted standard or structural pipe

specifications and to any other

specification, if used in a standard or

structural pipe application. Pipe which

meets the above physical parameters

and which is produced to proprietary

specifications, the API–5L, the API–5L

X–42, or to any other non-listed

specification is included within the

scope of this investigation if used in a

standard or structural pipe applicaion,

regardless of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

category into which it was classified. If

the pipe does not meet any of the above

identified ASTM or BS specifications

(i.e., ASTM A–53, ASTM A–120, ASTM

A–135, ASTM A–795, and BS–1387) or

is multiple-Stencilled or multiplecertified to one of these specifications

and to any other specification, although

it is within the identified physical

parameters described in the second

paragraph of this section, our

presumption is that it is not used in a

standard pipe application.

Standard pipe uses include the lowpressure 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 carry liquids at

elevated temperatures but may not be

subject to the application of external

heat. Standard pipe uses also include

load-bearing applications in

construction and residential and

industrial fence systems. Standard pipe

uses also include shells for the

production of finished conduit and pipe

used for the production of scaffolding.

Specifically excluded from this

investigation are mechanical tubing,

tube and pipe hollows for redrawing,

the finished electrical conduit if such

products are not certified to ASTM A–

53, ASTM A–120, ASTM A–135, ASTM

A–795, and BS–1387 specifications and

are not used in standard pipe

applications. Additionally, pipe meeting

the specifications for oil country tubular

goods is not covered by the scope of this

investigation, unless also certified to a

listed standard pipe specification or

used in a standard pipe application.

The merchandise under investigation

is currently classifiable under items

7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25,

7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40,

7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and

7306.30.50.90 of the HTSUS. Although

the HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and customs purposes,

our written description of the scope of

this investigation is dispositive.

Regarding implementation of the use

provision of the scope of this

investigation, and any order which may

be issued in this investigation, we are

well aware of the difficulty and burden

associated with such certifications.

Therefore, in order to maintain the

effectiveness of any order that may be

issued in light of actual substitution in

the future (which the use criterion is

meant to achieve), yet administer

certification procedures in the least

problematic manner, we have developed

an approach which simplifies these

procedures to the greatest extent

possible.

First, we will not require use

certification until such time as

petitioner or other interested parties

provide the Department with a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect

that substitution is occurring. Second,

we will require use certification only for

the product(s) (or specification(s)) for

which evidence is provided that

substitution is occurring. For example,

if, based on evidence provided by

petitioner, the Department finds a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect

that pipe produced to the API–5L

specification is being used as standard

pipe, we will require use certifications

for imports of API–5L specification

pipe. Third, normally we will require

only the importer of record to certify to

the use of the imported merchandise. If

it later proves necessary for adequate

implementation, we may also require

producers who export such products to

the United States to provide such

certification on invoices accompanying

shipments to the United States.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is

October 1, 1994, through March 31,

1995.

Facts Available

Pursuant to section 776 of the Act, the

Department shall use the facts otherwise

available if necessary information is not

available on the record, or if an

interested party or any other person

withholds requested information, fails

to provide such information by the

deadlines for submission of the

information or in the form and manner

requested, significantly impedes a

proceeding, or provides such

information but the information cannot

be verified.

In addition, section 776(b) of the Act

provides that, if the Department finds

that an interested party ‘‘has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with a request for

information,’’ the Department may use

information that is adverse to the

interests of that party as the facts

otherwise available. The statute also

provides that such an adverse inference

may be based on secondary information,

including information drawn from the

petition. In this case, Metanef refused

the verification of its questionnaire

responses. Therefore, since reliable

information is not on the record, and

Metanef has not acted to the best of its

ability, the application of section 776(b)

is warranted. As a result, we are basing

adverse facts available for the Romaniawide rate, which covers Metanef, on the

rate calculated for Metagrimex, which is
24276 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices

2Because Metanef refused to have its

questionnaire response verified, it is ineligible for

consideration for a separate dumping margin.

Accordingly, because Metanef is the only other

exporter, the country-wide rate is being based on

Metanef’s rate (which is based on adverse facts

available).

highest margin calculated and is higher

than the rate contained in the petition.2

Separate Rates

As stated in our preliminary

determination, Romania is a non-market

economy (NME) country. To establish

whether a firm is sufficiently

independent from government control

to be entitled to a separate rate, the

Department analyzes each exporting

entity under a test articulated in the

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the

People’s Republic of China (56 FR

20588, May 6, 1991) and amplified in

the Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from

the People’s Republic of China (59 FR

22585, 22586, May 2, 1994) (Silicon

Carbide). Under the separate rates

criteria, the Department assigns separate

cash deposit rates in nonmarket

economy cases only if a respondent

demonstrates the absence of both de jure

and de facto governmental control over

export activities.

The Department typically considers

three factors which support, though do

not require, a finding of de jure absence

of central control. These factors include:

(1) An absence of restrictive stipulations

associated with an individual exporter’s

business and export licenses; (2) any

legislative enactments decentralizing

control of companies; or (3) any other

formal measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies.

The Department typically considers four

factors in evaluating whether each

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export

functions: (1) Whether the export prices

are set by or subject to the approval of

a governmental authority; (2) whether

the respondent has authority to

negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent

has autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the

proceeds of its export sales and makes

independent decisions regarding

disposition of profits or financing of

losses (see Silicon Carbide).

1. Absence of De Jure Control

The two cooperating exporters of the

subject merchandise in this

investigation, Metagrimex and

Metalexportimport, have provided their

business licenses issued by the

Romanian Chamber of Commerce and

Industry. These exporters have stated

that these licenses do not require

renewal, do not impose any limitations

on or create any entitlements for their

operations, and can only be revoked by

the issuing authorities if the

requirements of the license are not

fulfilled. The exporters also provided

copies of several trade laws which they

claim provide for the elimination of the

state monopoly in the economy and

foreign trade. During the verification of

Metagrimex and Metalexportimport, we

examined these exporters’ business

licenses, as well as the relevant trade

laws. These documents supported the

absence of de jure control claimed by

these two exporters.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

These two exporters also asserted

absence of governmental control based

on all the de facto criteria. Specifically,

they stated that: (1) They establish their

own export prices; (2) they negotiate

contracts without guidance from any

governmental entities or organizations;

and (3) there are no restrictions on the

use of their export revenues and they

make independent decisions regarding

disposition of profits or financing of

losses. During our verification of these

two companies, we examined sales

documentation, including

correspondence and contracts with the

customer, as well as bank accounts and

profit allocation. These documents

confirmed the accuracy of the abovereferenced statements.

Concerning the fourth criterion that

the respondent in question has

autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of management, both

Metagrimex and Metalexportimport

stated that they had this autonomy.

During our verification of Metagrimex,

we examined the membership of its

Council of Administration, which

selects the management and is similar to

a board of directors. Our examination

confirmed that this council was

independent of the Romanian

government or agencies thereof, and

therefore, Metagrimex was able to make

its own management personnel

decisions.

During our verification of

Metalexportimport, we also examined

the membership of its Council of

Administration, which also selects the

management and is similar to a board of

directors. We confirmed that this

council, which is made up of five

members, only included one member

appointed by the state ownership fund

(SOF) and one member appointed by the

private ownership fund (POF). The SOF

and the POF were created by the

Romanian government to help privatize

Romanian companies. We thus

confirmed that this council was

independent of the Romanian

government or agencies thereof, and

therefore, Metalexportimport was able

to make its own management personnel

decisions.

Consequently, we determine that the

information provided by

Metalexportimport and Metagrimex

supports our finding that there is de jure

and de facto absence of governmental

control of export functions. Therefore,

these two companies have met the

criteria for the application of separate

rates.

Respondent Metanef provided

information regarding separate rates in

this investigation. However, because it

refused verification, we could not verify

its separate rate claim.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of pipe

from Romania to the United States by

Metagrimex and Metalexportimport

were made at less than fair value, we

compared Export Price (EP) to the

Normal Value (NV), as specified in the

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice.

Export Price

For both exporters, we calculated EP

in accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation and because constructed

export price under section 772(b) is not

otherwise warranted on the basis of the

facts of this investigation.

For Metagrimex and

Metalexportimport, we calculated EP

based on packed, FOB Romania port

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the

United States, as appropriate, based on

the same methodologies described in

the preliminary determination.

Normal Value

As stated in our preliminary

determination, when the Department is

investigating imports from a NME,

section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to

base NV on the NME producer’s factors

of production, valued in a comparable

market economy that is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise.

Therefore, we calculated NV based on

factors of production reported by Tepro,

the sole producer of the subject

merchandise. We made the following

adjustments to the factors reported by

Tepro based on our findings at

verification.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices 24277

First, we used corrected wall

thicknesses in matching steel coil to its

surrogate value (see comment #5 in the

‘‘Interested Party Comments’’ section of

this notice). Second, we adjusted

lacquer, electricity, and thread protector

factors for corrections found at

verification. Third, since Tepro was

unable to adequately support its

claimed labor figures for pipe produced

on production line 220, we disregarded

the amount reported and used, as facts

available, the highest verified direct

labor input for the size of pipe on

another verified line closest to the sizes

produced on line 220 (as discussed

below, indirect labor is included in the

value for overhead) (see comment #9 in

the ‘‘Interested Party Comments’’

section of this notice).

Valuation of Factors

For the final determination, we have

calculated NV using Colombian and

Thai prices to value Tepro’s factors of

production. We have multiplied the

reported factor quantities by these

values. Where we had information for

Columbia, we used it as our primary

surrogate. We have used data from

Columbia because Colombia is the

closest country to Romania in terms of

economic development that is also a

significant producer of the subject

merchandise. Where we had no

information for Colombia, we used

Thailand as our secondary surrogate

since Thailand is within the same percapita income band of countries as

Romania and Colombia and it is also a

significant producer of the subject

merchandise (see Comment #1 in the

‘‘Interested Party Comments’’ section of

this notice). All values were adjusted for

inflation, where appropriate.

To value hot rolled steel coil, the

major material input, we again used the

steel price list for sheet and coil sold to

industrial users in Colombia published

by Acerias Paz del Rio S.A., a

Colombian producer of steel sheet and

coil. To value saleable steel scrap,

because we could find no Colombian

PAPI, we used the percentage difference

between steel coil and steel scrap from

the 1994 Thai import statistics,

contained in the Foreign Trade

Statistics of Thailand, published by the

Thai Customs Department (1994 Thai

Import Statistics). For lacquer and

marking paint, we used the basket

category data for paints and varnishes

for both of these factors reported in the

1994 Colombian import statistics,

provided by the Instituto Colombiano de

Comercia Exterior (1994 Colombian

Import Statistics). For zinc,

hydrochloric acid, zinc chloride and

ammonium chloride, we used values in

the 1994 Colombian Import Statistics.

For saleable zinc scrap, because we

could find no Colombian PAPI, we used

the values in the 1994 Thailand Import

Statistics.

To value unskilled and packing labor,

we used the 1994 wage rate for the

manufacturing sector published in the

Economic Guide for Investors by the

Colombian government. Since we

cannot determine if the labor values in

this case were for skilled or unskilled

workers, we are following the method

established in the Final Determination

of Sales at Less than Fair Value:

Polyvinyl Alcohol from the PRC (61 FR

14057, March 29, 1996). In that

investigation, we found no basis to

assume the skill level of the surrogate

value, nor did we have agreement

among the parties regarding the skill

level. Thus, we applied a single wage

rate to all reported labor factors. Since

we have the same situation here, we

applied a single wage rate to unskilled

and packing labor factors. Further,

because this value was exclusive of

benefits, we increased the amount

reported to include benefits. As

explained above, the value for overhead

includes an amount for indirect labor.

Thus, we did not value the factor for

indirect labor.

To value electricity, we used

electricity rates for Colombian industrial

users published quarterly by the Latin

America Energy Organization

(Organizacion Latinoamericana de

Energia, or OLADE). For methane,

because we were unable to find a

Colombian value, we used the value of

natural gas because, according to the

petitioners, it has substantially the same

end use as methane. We based the

surrogate value for natural gas on 1992

Colombian prices shown in a 1993

OLADE publication.

For the packing materials of cold

rolled strip, PVC foil and thread

protectors, because we could find no

Colombian PAPI, we used the values in

the 1994 Thailand Import Statistics.

We were unable to locate Colombian

PAPI for overhead, selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses, and

profit. Therefore, we used the values

from the Final Results of the 1992–93

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review of Certain Circular Welded

Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from

Thailand (61 FR 1328, January 19, 1996)

(1992–93 Administrative Review). The

rate for overhead included an amount

for indirect labor. Overhead was

calculated as a factor of direct labor.

SG&A expenses were calculated as a

percentage of the sum of materials, labor

and overhead.

We were also unable to locate

Colombian PAPI for rail freight and

foreign brokerage and handling. Thus,

for rail freight, we used the rate

contained in the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from

Romania (57 FR 42957, September 17,

1992) (Steel Pipe I). This information

was obtained from The Investment

Environment in Thailand for 1991. For

foreign brokerage and handling, we used

the rate contained in the public version

of a questionnaire response submitted in

the 1994 antidumping duty

investigation of Carbon Steel Butt Weld

Pipe Fittings from Thailand (60 FR

10552, February 27, 1995). We used the

rate contained in the 1994 investigation

because this figure was more recent than

the foreign brokerage and handling rate

contained in Steel Pipe I, which was

based on an earlier Carbon Steel Butt

Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand

investigation. For a complete analysis of

surrogate values used in the calculation

of NV, see the May 3, 1996,

memorandum from the Team to Gary

Taverman, Acting Director, Office of

Antidumping Investigations.

Romania-Wide Rate

As in all NME cases, the Department

implements a policy whereby there is a

rebuttable presumption that all

exporters or producers comprise a single

exporter under common government

control, the ‘‘NME entity.’’ The

Department assigns a single NME rate to

the NME entity, unless an exporter can

demonstrate eligibility for a separate

rate. As stated previously, Metanef has

not established entitlement to a separate

rate because of its refusal to have its

questionnaire response verified.

Therefore, it becomes the Romania-wide

rate (for a further discussion of the NME

rate, see the Final Determination of

Sales at Less than Fair Value: Bicycles

from the People’s Republic of China (61

FR 19026, April 30, 1996).

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified all information

submitted (except that of Metanef) used

in our final determination. We used

standard verification procedures,

including examination of relevant

accounting and production records and

original source documents.

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1: Selection of Surrogate

Countries

The petitioners state that any

surrogate country used in this

investigation should be a significant
24278 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices

producer of comparable merchandise.

Since Colombia, Thailand and the

United States are the only countries on

the record which have been shown to be

significant producers of the subject

merchandise, the petitioners state that

only surrogate data from these countries

can be used in the final determination.

DOC Position

We agree with the petitioners.

However, for the final determination,

we have only used values from

Colombia and Thailand because values

were found for these two countries,

making the use of U.S. values

unnecessary.

Comment 2: Proposed Use of the

Acerias Price List to Value Steel Coil

The respondents argue that the

Department should not use the price list

of Acerias Paz del Rio, S.A. (Acerias) to

value steel in the final determination.

The petitioners argue that respondents’

assertions on this matter have, for the

part, been rejected by the Department in

its preliminary determination and that

the Department should continue to use

the price list to value steel in the final

determination. The arguments presented

by both sides have been classified into

five main areas: (1) Whether the prices

on the price list were aberrational; (2)

whether the price list represents actual

prices; (3) whether the Department’s use

of this list in the preliminary

determination was predictable and fair;

(4) whether the problems of Acerias

have an impact on its prices; and (5)

whether the Department’s past practice

allows for the use of the price list.

Regarding whether the price list was

aberrational, the respondents argue that

the Acerias prices are aberrational and

conflict with the other values on the

record and are, therefore, not reliable.

The petitioners counter that the Acerias

prices are not aberrational and fall

squarely in the range of the prices: (1)

Provided by the respondents when one

increases these prices for the increase in

world steel prices; and (2) from 12

countries provided by the petitioners.

Both parties then argue about whether

the price list represents actual prices.

The respondents argue that the Acerias

price list does not represent actual

prices. They then contend the following.

First, the Department relied upon a

vague affidavit provided by the

petitioners to establish steel prices in

the preliminary determination. In

contract, the affidavit, provided by

respondents shows that the price list

does not represents actual prices.

Second, Colombia pipe producers use

imported steel. Therefore, the price list

has no probative value. Third the

petitioners have previously argued that

a price list submitted by the

respondents was inconsequential since

‘‘it is widely known that virtually all

steel purchasers receive substantial

discounts from price lists.’’

The petitioners counter that the

Acerias price is publicly available

published information which represents

actual prices paid for steel coil in

Colombia. The petitioners argue the

following to support this contention.

First, petitioners’ affidavit was properly

sworn and consularized and was not

vague in any way. Second, the two

affidavits submitted by the respondents

to discredit the price list rely on broad

generalizations and misdirection and

are not proper affidavits. Third, the

petitioner’ previous statements

regarding the applicability of steel price

lists related to U.S. lists and therefore

are of no relevance to the Acerias price

list.

Both parties then argue whether the

Department’s use of this list in this

investigation was predictable and fair.

The respondents assert that the use of

this price list violates the Department’s

own precepts that NME cases be

accurate, fair and predictable. To

support their assertion, they argue the

following. First, during the last four

years, the Department has developed a

PAPI hierarchy that prefers import

statistics. Second, in this case, the

Romanians could not have anticipated

that Colombia would be selected as the

surrogate country. However, even if they

would have relied on Colombia import

statistics or world import statistics to

help them predict probable surrogate

values and establish a price structure for

the U.S. market, not a price list dated

seven months after the POI. Third, even

the Departments Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking and Request for Public

Comments (16 FR 7308, February 27,

1996) states that prices observed in

international markets may better serve

the Department’s goals of accuracy and

fairness.

The petitioners counter that the

selection of Colombia as a surrogate

country was very predictable. First, the

Department’s policy has never required

that the surrogate be a major exporter in

the production of comparable

merchandise. Second, the fact that the

surrogate countries for Romania have

changed over time is attributable to

economic changes in Romania. Third,

there is no fixed policy preference for

import statistics over all other sources

in NME cases. Fourth, the Department

has been willing to use world prices

only where the surrogate value that

would have been selected under the

traditional method is aberrational,

which is not the case here.

Both parties then discussed whether

the problems of Acerias have an impact

on its prices. The respondents argue the

following. First, Acerias is currently in

bankruptcy and continues to suffer the

effects of strikes which took place in

1994. The Department in a previous

case refused to use the annual report of

an Indian bearing producer for overhead

because it too, was in bankruptcy (Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof from the

Peoples Republic of China (Tapered

Roller Bearings) (56 FR 67590,

December 31, 1991)). Second, Acerias is

not comparable to other world steel

producers because it is not

representative of modern steel

companies.

The petitioners counter that the

Acerias price list is not unreliable.

unrepresentative or distortive. To

support their position, the petitioners

argue the following. First, respondents

have failed to demonstrate any

connection between Acerias financial

difficulties and the notion that this

caused Acerias to charge higher prices

for its products. If any connection

between financial problems and prices

has been established, the record shows

that Acerias had to charge lower prices

for its products than it normally would

have. Second, respondents’ claim that

Acerias’ production is based on old

technology is inconsequential because it

does not refer to whether the technology

relates to the production of hot-rolled

coil and does not mention the fact that

Acerias has made improvements to its

infrastructure in the preceding years.

Finally, both parties discuss whether

the Department’s past practice allows

for the use of the price list. The

respondents contend that the

Department’s acceptance of an

unverified price list contravenes the

Department’s policy on price lists. They

argue that to use a price list, the

Department requires that all sales be

based on the price list, an accounting

firm must certify that the company

adheres to the price lists, and the price

list must be contemporaneous, none of

which is present here. The respondents

then argue that the price list is not PAPI

and should not be used.

The petitioners counter that

respondent’s characterization of the

Department’s practice with respect to

price lists is incorrect. The further state

that the documentation provided by the

respondents relates only to the use of

price lists as substitute for sale-by-sale

reporting of actual transaction prices.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices 24279

3Thai import statistics are used for comparison

purposes because: (1) Thailand is within the same

per-capita income band of countries as Romania

and Columbia; (2) Thailand is a large producer of

the subject merchandise; and (3) steel import

statistics were available from Thailand.

DOC Position

We agree with the petitioners, in part.

We have used the Acerias price list to

value steel coil but have not made an

adjustment to this list for the price trend

claimed by the petitioners (see also

Comments #3 below). In this case we

have used the Acerias price list because

we feel that its is more appropriate to

use actual prices of a producer of a

material input in the primary surrogate

country rather than import statistics. We

believe that Acerias prices more closely

represent prices a pipe producer in a

comparable market economy country

would pay for this input material.

Furthermore, the use of the price list

was found to be reasonable when

analyzing the points (discussed below)

raised by the interest parties. Therefore,

it is our first choice for valuation

purposes.

Regarding the issue of whether the

prices on the price list are aberrational,

we have compared the Acerias prices to

(1) Colombian import statistics provided

by the respondents; (2) Thailand import

statistics; 3 and (3) Latin American

export prices published in the Metal

Bulletin. Where appropriate, prices were

adjusted for inflation to make them POI

prices. The results of this analysis

showed that the prices on the Acerias

price list were reasonably close in value

to those comparators (for a complete

discussion of this analysis, see the May

6, 1996, issues memorandum from the

Team to Barbara R. Stafford, Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Investigations).

Regarding the issue of whether the

price list represents actual prices, we

feel confident that the prices on Acerias’

list are actual prices. The affidavit

provided by the petitioners states that

the price list (1) Is publicly available to

any person who requests it; and (2)

contains actual prices charged by

Acerias to industrial users in Colombia.

While these industrial users receive

discounts for unfinished edges, quantity

purchases, and prompt payment, these

discounts are clearly identified on the

price list and have been deducted from

the prices used in our calculations.

Thus, we have utilized actual prices

paid by Acerias’ customers in our

margin calculations.

Regarding Tepro’s affidavit, we

believe that the price list describes

adequately the type of steel. We agree

with the petitioners that ‘‘commercial

quality’’ adequately describes SAE 1010

grade or its equivalent which is used by

pipe producers. Furthermore, it does not

matter that Acerias may: (1) Not have

sold the steel to Colombian pipe

producers; (2) not have sold exclusively

from the price list; or (3) have sold to

large customers at discounts below

those listed on the price list. None of

these arguments explicitly disproves

that Acerias sold steel coil using the

prices on its price list to customers in

Colombia. We have found no evidence

that the prices in the price list are not

actual prices; in contrast, we believe

that petitioners’ affidavit demonstrates

that the list prices are, indeed, actual

prices.

Regarding the issue of whether the

Department’s use of the Acerias list was

predictable and fair, we note that

Colombia was used in this investigation

due to its per-capita GNP similarity with

Romania and the fact that it is a

significant producer of the subject

merchandise. While the surrogate

countries have changed over time

because of the economic changes of

Romania and other countries, the

Department has utilized the same

criteria for selecting surrogate countries.

The Department selects surrogate

countries based on the per-capita GNP

rankings of all countries listed in the

World Development Report published

by the World Bank. Therefore, we

believe the selection of Colombia as the

surrogate country in this investigation

was both predictable and fair.

Furthermore, we disagree with the

respondents that the Department has

developed a PAPI hierarchy in which

import statistics are preferred to

surrogate values from a producer of the

material input in the primary surrogate

country. The Department does not have

a hierarchy where import statistics are

used. As explained above, in this case,

publicly available surrogate values from

a producer of the material input in the

primary surrogate country have been

found to be preferable over import

statistics. Finally, the Department’s

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Request for Public Comments stated that

international markets should only be

used when data from a primary and/or

secondary surrogate countries were not

found to be appropriate, and not as the

first choice.

Regarding the issue of whether the

problems of Acerias have an impact on

its prices, we do not believe that the

respondents have adequately

demonstrated any relationship between

Acerias’ financial difficulties and the

steel coil prices charged by Acerias.

There is nothing on the record which

states that Acerias charged its customers

higher prices than it normally would

have due to its financial difficulties. In

fact, one could argue that a cause of

Acerias’ negative financial state is a

consequence of the lower than normal

prices it charged its domestic customers.

Furthermore, in Tapered Roller

Bearings, the Department refused to use

the Indian roller bearing producer’s data

because the auditor’s report for this

producer noted that the financial

statements were not presented in

accordance with the generally accepted

accounting principles of India. In

addition, there are conflicting

arguments on the record regarding the

age of the technology used by Acerias

and its resultant level of efficiency.

However, there is not information on

the record which proves that the

technology used by Acerias has had a

marked impact on its prices.

Regarding the issue of whether the

Department’s past practice allows for

the use of the price list, we disagree

with the respondents. The conditions

for using a price list described in the

respondents’ argument only apply when

the price list is used as a substitute for

sale-by-sale reporting of actual

transaction prices in market economy

cases.

Although we have used the Acerias

price list to value steel coil in this

investigation and have made an

adjustment to the prices in this list for

inflation, we have not made the

additional adjustment to the prices for

the price trend claimed by the

petitioners. This additional adjustment

was made in the preliminary

determination. However, we have

determined that, after a further review

of the information on the record, this

adjustment is not appropriate, as the

information supplied by the petitioners

to substantiate it was not specific to the

Colombian domestic market, but was for

Latin American export prices. We have

determined that there is an insufficient

link between domestic Colombian

prices and average Latin American

export prices and, therefore, we have

denied this adjustment (for a further

discussion of the Department’s

discussion of this issue, see the May 6,

1996, issues memorandum from the

Team to Barbara R. Stafford, Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Investigations).

Comment 3: Proposed Use of Colombian

Import Statistics To Value Steel Coil

The respondents argue that the

Colombian import statistics they

provided are PAPI that should be used

in the final determination. They also

argue the following. First, the lowest

import prices are the prices paid by

large industrial users and should be

used by the Department in this case to
24280 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices

value steel coil. Second, the rationale

contained in the Department’s

November 21, 1995, steel valuation

memorandum (regarding thickness and

grade) is no longer relevant. Thus, the

respondents argue that the Department

should use the Colombian import

statistics to value steel. The respondents

than state that only limited adjustments

need to be made if the Colombian

import prices are used.

The respondents also state that

petitioners’ evidence showing an

increase in the prices of steel during

January 1994 to March 1995 is largely

anecdotal or based on Metal Bulletin

spot prices. The respondents argue that

the U.S. import data shows no such

increase in the prices of steel during this

time. Furthermore, if there was such an

increase, the petitioners should have

been able to provide their own invoices

to substantiate this. Finally, since most

companies keep inventories of key raw

materials, a monthly spike in prices will

not necessarily affect a large user as

much as a user which buys sporadically.

The petitioners counter respondents’

arguments with the following. First,

respondents’ claim that the lowest

Columbian import prices reflect the

prices paid by large industrial users is

sheer speculation. Furthermore, the

Department had many other reasons for

rejecting respondents’ arguments in the

steel valuation memorandum than just

thickness and grade. However, the

petitioners argue that if the Department

chooses to use the Colombian import

statistics submitted by the respondents,

certain adjustments need to be made.

Finally, the petitioners argue that the

evidence of the steel price surge is not

anecdotal nor based on spot prices but

information contained in the Metal

Bulletin. They contend that

respondent’s U.S. import statistics are

useless to the Department because they

provide country-specific information for

only a handful of exporting countries

and the totals are skewed by the

inclusion of cheap imports from nonmarket economies such as Russia. They

further contend that the information on

the record does not allow the

Department to identify the quantity or

value of NME imports so that they may

be excluded. Finally, the petitioners

argue that the limited information in

these import statistics seems to support

petitioners’ information regarding steel

price trends.

DOC Position

We disagree with the respondents and

have not selected the Colombian import

statistics to value the steel coil. As

stated above in our response to

Comment #2, in this case we believe

that the Acerias price list is preferable

to the Colombian import statistics.

Accordingly, the issue about how to

adjust the Colombian import statistics is

therefore moot.

Comment 4: Discount for Secondary

Steel

Tepro argues that the Department’s

rejection of a discount for the purchase

of secondary steel in the preliminary

determination was unreasonable and

should be corrected for the final

determination. To support its claim,

Tepro argues the following. First, the

information Tepro provided for the

preliminary determination should be

sufficient to warrant an adjustment.

Second, the Department has now

verified Tepro’s gross consumption and

scrap rates. These rates do not support

rejection of the discount. Third,

qualitative differences impact price and

Tepro’s supplier sold its steel at a

significant discount because of

qualitative differences. Fourth, the

Department itself has differentiated

between ‘‘first quality’’ and ‘‘second

quality’’ merchandise in the Steel

Trigger Price Mechanism Procedures

Manual. Fifth, the reluctance of the

Department to grant a discount for

secondary steel may be based on the fear

that the precedent in this case would

make the Department vulnerable in

other cases to similar requests for

discounts based on qualitative

differences in merchandise. The last

argument notwithstanding, the

Department has the obligation to select

surrogate values which are ‘‘accurate

and fair’’ and thus, the discount should

be granted.

Tepro also states that the information

gained at the verification proved that it

was entitled to this discount. This

information included: (1) The statement

by an official of Tepro’s supplier at

verification that the quality standards

for sale of hot-rolled coil to Romania in

general and Tepro in particular are

significantly lower than those for export

and the discount to Tepro was because

of differences in quality; and (2)

invoices which show that Tepro bought

steel during the POI at prices lower than

Romanian exports to the European

Union (EU). Tepro also stated that the

reason the verifiers did not see physical

defects in the steel in Tepro’s inventory

is that this steel was of Russian origin

and Tepro does not purchase secondary

steel from its Russian supplier. Finally,

Tepro argued that the only information

on the record that conflicted with

Tepro’s secondary steel claim is the

statement from an employee of one of

the petitioners who, to Tepro’s

knowledge, had never been to Romania,

never visited Tepro or its supplier, and

had no knowledge of the production

process employed by Tepro. Thus, the

Department’s decision is not supported

by evidence on the record.

The petitioners counter that Tepro’s

claim that the secondary steel discount

should again be rejected for the final

determination. To support this

contention, the petitioner argues first,

that nothing has been submitted to the

Department since the preliminary

determination to warrant a different

conclusion. In particular, Tepro’s

reported scrap rates have not changed,

nor has Tepro rebutted the results of the

metallurgical tests to which the

Department referred. Second, no new

documents were produced at

verification to substantiate the claim

that Tepro uses only secondary steel.

The statement on the invoices observed

at verification was that the steel was

‘‘not designated for exports to the EU.’’

Respondents’ interpretation of this is

not buttressed by any evidence on the

record. Petitioners proffer that the

restriction probably arises from export

controls between the EU and eastern

European countries or the desire of

Romanian producers to avoid triggering

an EU antidumping action.

Furthermore, internal prices in an NME

country are irrelevant to the

Department’s analysis because such

prices are not established by market

forces.

Third, respondents cannot state that

the Department’s reluctance to grant a

discount is based on fear of the

precedent that would set since they

cannot speak for the Department, and

the petitioners note that the Department

has previously been receptive to

adjustments for qualitative differences

where they have been established by

substantial evidence on the record.

Fourth, the petitioners had more than

one piece of evidence disputing

respondents’ claims; in fact, the

metallurgical test not mentioned by the

respondents was the piece of evidence

most damaging to the respondents’

argument. Finally, although the

employee of one of the petitioners did

not visit Tepro’s plant, the Department

verifiers did and found no evidence to

support Tepro’s claims.

DOC Position

We agree with the petitioners. Since

the preliminary determination, the only

additional information on the record

regarding this issue is the discussion in

the verification report and verification

exhibits. Regarding the statement by

Tepro’s supplier at verification that it

granted Tepro a discount because of

differences in quality, we do not believe
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices 24281

that it would be appropriate to grant a

price adjustment based on statements

that were not supported by physical

evidence. As explained in the

preliminary determination, Tepro did

not provide adequate documentation to

support its claimed adjustment. The

only new documentation gained at the

verification were invoices that state that

the merchandise is not designated for

exports to the EU. As noted by the

petitioners, this could have been for a

variety of reasons. No evidence was

provided which conclusively

demonstrated that Tepro received a

discount for buying steel that was of a

lower quality or grade than standard

steel.

Regarding Tepro’s other points, we

note the following. First, the scrap rates

of Tepro, although verified, have not

changed since the preliminary

determination. Furthermore, although

we agree with Tepro that qualitative

differences may affect price and that the

Department has discussed prime versus

secondary quality merchandise in the

past, this is irrelevant since no such

qualitative differences have been

established here. In addition, Tepro’s

claim that ‘‘reluctance of the

Department to grant a discount for

secondary steel may be based on the fear

that the precedent in this case would

open up the Department in other cases

to similar requests for discounts based

on qualitative differences in

merchandise’’ is not accurate. As stated

above, the Department has rejected this

adjustment to price because there has

been no evidence placed on the record

which demonstrates that Tepro received

a discount for buying steel that was of

a lower quality or grade than standard

steel. Finally, the metallurgical test

submitted by the petitioners showed

that the grade of steel used by Tepro

was identical to the grade of steel used

by U.S. and other world producers of

the subject merchandise. As noted by

the petitioners, this test was not

rebutted by Tepro.

Comment 5: Prices for Different Steel

Sizes Matched to Proper Pipe Sizes

The petitioners contend that the

Department in certain instances

incorrectly matched prices for different

thicknesses of steel with the wrong pipe

sizes. They argue that the coil

thicknesses reported by Tepro are

inconsistent with the steel thicknesses

specified by ASTM A–53 grade with

which Tepro claims to comply. They

also state that prices for 3–4mm thick

coil may be applied only to pipe that is

2′′ diameter or smaller.

DOC Position

We agree with the petitioners and

have corrected the wall thicknesses for

those products that were incorrectly

listed. Furthermore, we have used the

corrected wall thicknesses in the

matching to the surrogate value for steel

coil.

Comment 6: Use of Steel Input

Quantities Reported in the

Questionnaire Response

The petitioners argue that since Tepro

reported its theoretical steel weight

figures instead of its actual steel weight

figures, it should be subject to adverse

facts available. They also state that, at a

minimum, the Department should not

adjust downward the reported amounts

by the amount of the difference noted in

the verification report.

DOC Position

Since the Department only had time

at verification to examine the

theoretical/actual weight difference for

one pipe size, we do not believe that it

would be appropriate to attempt to

convert all weights from theoretical to

actual for all pipe sizes based on the one

size examined. Also, as noted in the

verification report, the theoretical

weight was greater than the actual

weight for the one size examined.

Therefore, we have made no

adjustments to the theoretical weights

listed and have accepted them for

purposes of the final determination.

Comment 7: Steel Scrap

The petitioners argue that the steel

scrap surrogate used in the preliminary

determination is aberrational and must

be reduced. To support its argument, the

petitioners make the following points:

(1) The tariff category used for scrap in

1991 was under- or over-inclusive; (2)

the 1991 scrap/coil ratio in Thailand

was completely unlike that of other

markets; and (3) the scrap/coil ratio has

changed dramatically since 1991. The

petitioners state that the scrap value to

coil value in other world markets was

one-third to one-half the values used in

the preliminary determination and

argue that the Thai scrap/coil ratios are

aberrational, as well as not being

contemporaneous with the POI. Thus,

the Department should instead use the

average of three contemporaneous ratios

calculated by the petitioners.

The respondents claim that if the

Colombian import statistics are used to

value steel, then they do not object to

the use of a lower scrap price. The

respondents state that, where possible,

contemporaneous prices should be

used.

DOC Position

We have obtained updated Thai

import values for steel coil and steel

scrap and are using these values to

obtain a steel scrap ratio. These values

are specific to the steel used in the

production of steel pipe. These values

are from the Thai Import Statistics, the

same source that was used in the

preliminary determination, but are

based on the period from January to

June, 1994, and thus, the resultant ratio

from these figures is more

contemporaneous with the POI than the

ratio used in the preliminary

determination. Therefore, any change in

the scrap/coil ratio since 1991 has been

incorporated into this new ratio.

Regarding the argument that this ratio is

aberrational, we found no other

information on scrap ratios for

Colombia, the primary surrogate

country, or Thailand, the secondary

surrogate country, which show that this

rate is aberrational in the surrogate

countries. Furthermore, we disagree

with the petitioners that we should use

an average of the three scrap ratios

calculated by the petitioners as these

ratios are from countries that are less

appropriate surrogate countries than

Thailand.

Comment 8: Other Raw Materials

In addition to hot-rolled coil, the

respondents contend that the

Department should use Colombian

import statistics on the record to value

zinc, zinc chloride, ammonium

chloride, hydrochloric acid and paint.

DOC Position

We agree with the respondents that

we should use Colombian import

statistics now on the record to value

these raw materials. Colombia is our

first choice as a surrogate country and

we have therefore used the import

statistics to value these raw materials.

Comment 9: Direct and Indirect Labor

Inputs for Line 220

The petitioners state that since Tepro

could not substantiate its unit labor

amounts reported for each size pipe

produced on its production line 220, the

Department should use facts available

for direct and indirect labor inputs for

all subject merchandise above three

inches diameter. They argue that the

methodology suggested at verification is

untimely, unsubstantiated and

unverified and that the statute and the

Department’s policies forbid the use of

such information. They argue that the

Department should use the higher of: (1)

the highest reported direct and indirect

labor input reported for pipe of other
24282 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices

sizes; or (2) the factor used in the

petition for 4′′ diameter pipe.

The respondents state that the

Department should use the alternative

methodology suggested by Tepro at

verification in order to calculate labor

factors for line 220.

DOC Position

We agree with the petitioners, in part.

We do not believe that the methodology

suggested by the respondents at

verification is appropriate because it

was calculated only for one month, and

does not arrive at the actual labor hours

on line 220 for that month. Thus, we

believe that the use of facts available is

appropriate. However, we do not agree

with the petitioners on the selection of

adverse facts available. Instead of using

the highest reported labor input

reported for pipe of other sizes, we

believe that it is more appropriate to use

the highest verified direct labor input

for the size of pipe on another verified

line closest to the sizes produced on

line 220 and have done so. An amount

for indirect labor was not added because

indirect labor is included in the

overhead amount.

Comment 10: Factory Overhead, SG&A

Expenses and Profit

For SC&A expenses, the respondents

state that the figure used in the

preliminary determination is

inappropriate because it is not

contemporaneous with the POI. The

respondents argue that the Department

should use the SG&A figure from the

1994–95 Administrative Review of

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes from Thailand (1994–

95 Administrative Review) rather than

the SG&A figure from the 1987–88

Administrative Review of Certain

Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and

Tubes from Thailand (1987–88

Administrative Review), which was

used in the preliminary determination.

The respondents also argued that the

petitioners’ proposed new SG&A figure,

when one makes the proper

adjustments, serves to underscore the

unreasonableness of the data used in the

preliminary determination.

For profit, the respondents argue the

following. First, since the steel price

selected by the Department is 30–40

percent higher than the steel price paid

by Thai pipe producer Saha Thai Steel

Pipe Co., Ltd. (Saha Thai) in the 1994–

95 Administrative Review, the

Department cannot use such high raw

material prices and then hypothesize

that an eight percent profit could be

obtained in Thailand, since U.S. import

statistics confirm that Thai producers

sell steel pipe at prices similar to that

paid for Romanian pipe. Second, there

are questions about how the profit was

calculated in the 1992–93Administrative

Review and the profit amounts in the

1994–95 Administrative Review

contradict the profit figures proposed by

the petitioners from the 1992–93

Administrative Review. Third, the

Department should rely upon what is

knows about the Colombian steel

industry to calculate profit. Information

on the record suggests that all sectors of

the Colombian steel industry are not

profitable. Therefore, the Department

should use a zero profit margin or

petitioner’s own profit margins.

The petitioners state that the values

used in the preliminary determination

for factory overhead, SG&A expenses

and profit should also be used for the

final determination. The petitioners

argue that the information provided by

respondents for these factors was

submitted for the 1994–95

Administrative Review which has not

been completed. These factors are

therefore based on questionnaire

responses that may have been

superseded by subsequent revisions and

have not yet been determined to be

reliable for the case in which they were

originally filed. In addition,the excerpts

themselves are also incomplete. The

information used in the preliminary

determination does not have these

defects and should therefore be used in

the final determination. Alternatively,

the petitioner argue that the Department

should use information from the 1992–

93 Administrative Review, the most

recently completed administrative

review. This record of this review

contains publicly-ranged figures for

SG&A expenses and profit for Saha

Thai. The petitioners note that if the

Department decides to use information

from the 1994–95 Administrative

Review, it should use the most recent

amendments or revisions to such data.

Regarding profit, the petitioners

contend that respondents’ suggestion

that the Department use the Acerias

profit should be rejected because

although no objectionable connection

has been established between Acerias’

financial problems and its prices, there

is definitely a connection between those

problems and its profit.

DOC Position

We agree with the petitioners that the

best information to use for overhead,

SG&A expenses and profit for the final

determination in this case are the

futures from the most recently

completed administrative review of

Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and

Tubes from Thailand. In this case, the

most recently completed review is the

1992–93 Administrative Review. We

believe that it is not appropriate to use

figures from an uncompleted review

since they may be altered as the case

progresses. We are therefore using the

public figures from the 1992–93

Administrative Review for overhead and

SG&A expenses.

For profit, since we are using actual

public overhead and SG&A expense

amounts, we believe that it is also

appropriate to use the actual public

profit figure listed in the 1992–93

Administrative Review, not the eight

percent figure used in the preliminary

determination, and have done so.

Comment 11: Inland Freight

The petitioners argue that the

Department should use in the final

determination the costs incurred by

Tepro in non-convertible currency for

domestic inland freight. They state that

where surrogate values are not available,

the Department should use facts

available based on data in the petition.

DOC Position

In asking that the Department use the

costs incurred by Tepro in nonconvertible currency for foreign inland

freight, the petitioners failed to note that

the Department applied a surrogate

value for domestic inland freight in the

preliminary determination. We have

followed the same methodology for

purposes of the final determination. The

inland freight distance between Tepro

and the Romanian port was reported by

Tepro in its questionnaire response.

Comment 12: Brokerage

The respondents argue that the

Department should use the brokerage

figure for Saha Thai contained in the

1994–95 Administrative Review of

Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and

Tubes from Thailand for purposes of the

final determination.

DOC Position

We disagree with the respondents. As

mentioned above (see Issue #12), we

believe that it is appropriate not to use

the figures from an uncompleted review

where possible since these figures may

be altered as the case progresses. We are

therefore using the same public values

we used in the final determination from

Carbon Steel Butt Weld Pipe Fittings

from Thailand to value foreign

brokerage and handling.

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquiation

In accordance with section

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing

the Customs Service to continue to

suspend liquidation of all entries of
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices 24283

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe

from Romania, that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse for

consumption, on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. The Customs Service shall

require a cash deposit or posting of a

bond equal to the estimated amount by

which the normal value exceeds the

export price as shown below. In

accordance with section 733(d) of the

Act, the suspension of liquidation based

on the Department’s preliminary

determination may not remain in effect

for more than six months (including the

statutory permissible extension). In

accordance with this provision, these

suspension of liquidation instructions

will remain in effect until May 28, 1996.

The weighted-average dumping

margins are as follows:

Exporter

Weightedaverage

percentage

margin

Metagrimex S.A ........................ 85.12

Metalexportimport S.A .............. 77.61

Romanian-Wide Rate ............... 85.12

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. As our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will, within 45 days, determine whether

these imports are materially injuring, or

threaten material injury to, the U.S.

industry. If the ITC determines that

material injury, or threat of material

injury does not exist, the proceeding

will be terminated and all securities

posted will be refunded or canceled. If

the ITC determines that such injury

does exist, the Department will issue an

antidumping duty order directing

Customs officials to assess antidumping

duties on all imports of the subject

merchandise entered for consumption

on or after the effective date of the

suspension of liquidation.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act.

Dated: May 6, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11941 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–201–802]

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review; Gray

Portland Cement and Clinker From

Mexico

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration/Import Administration/

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has conducted an administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on gray

portland cement and clinker from

Mexico. The review covers exports of

this merchandise to the United States

during the period August 1, 1993,

through July 31, 1994, and one firm,

CEMEX, S.A. The results of this review

indicate the existence of dumping

margins for the period.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 14, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nathan Bartholomew or Donna Kinsella,

Office of Agreements Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions as they existed on

December 31, 1994.

Background

On August 3, 1994, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register (58 FR 41239) a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ for the August

1, 1993, through July 31, 1994, period of

review (POR) of the antidumping duty

order on gray portland cement and

clinker from Mexico (55 FR 35371,

August 29, 1990). In accordance with 19

CFR 353.22, CEMEX, S.A. (CEMEX) and

the petitioners, the Ad Hoc Committee

of AZ–NM–TX–FL Producers of Gray

Portland Cement and the National

Cement Co. of California, Inc., requested

a review for the afore-mentioned period.

On September 16, 1994, the Department

published a notice of ‘‘Initiation of

Antidumping Review’’ (58 FR 51053).

The Department is now conducting a

review of this respondent pursuant to

section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (the Tariff Act).

Scope of Review

The products covered by this review

include gray portland cement and

clinker. Gray portland cement is a

hydraulic cement and the primary

component of concrete. Clinker, an

intermediate material product produced

when manufacturing cement, has no use

other than of being ground into finished

cement. Gray portland cement is

currently classifiable under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

number 2523.29, and cement clinker is

currently classifiable under number

2523.10. Gray portland cement has also

been entered under number 2523.90 as

‘‘other hydraulic cements.’’ The HTS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and U.S. Customs Service

(the Customs Service) purposes only.

The written description remains

dispositive as to the scope of the

product coverage.

Preliminary Results of Review

Section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act

and 19 CFR 353.46(a) provide that

foreign market value (FMV) shall be

based on the price at which ‘‘such or

similar merchandise’’ is sold in the

exporting country in the ‘‘ordinary

course of trade for home consumption.’’

Section 771(15) of the Tariff Act defines

‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ as ‘‘the

conditions and practices which, for a

reasonable time prior to the exportation

of the merchandise which is the subject

of an investigation, have been normal in

the trade under consideration with

respect to merchandise of the same class

or kind’’ (see also 19 CFR 353.46(b)).

In the second administrative review of

this order CEMEX reported home

market sales of Type I, Type II, and

Type V cement. Following their receipt

of this information, petitioners alleged

that CEMEX’s home market sales of

Type II and Type V cement were outside

the ordinary course of trade. See Gray

Portland Cement and Clinker From

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR

47253, 47254 (Sept. 8, 1993). Pursuant

to this allegation, we compared

CEMEX’s home market sales of Type II

and Type V cement with sales of similar

merchandise (namely, Type I cement) in

order to analyze certain factors

regarding the nature of the sales of the

different types of cement, including

freight expenses and profit levels. Id. at

47255–56. Based on this comparison,

and on other factors explained in our