Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Notices 12465

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: January 30, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement II.

[FR Doc. 01–4770 Filed 2–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–428–820]

Small Diameter Circular Seamless

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard Line

and Pressure Pipes From Germany;

Notice of Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review in Accordance With Final Court

Decision

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Amended Final

Results of Administrative Review in

Accordance with Final Court Decision

on Small Diameter Circular Seamless

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard Line

and Pressure Pipes from Germany.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Decker or Phyllis Hall, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III, Office VII, Room

7866, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–0196 or (202) 482–1398,

respectively.

SUMMARY: On October 5, 2000, the U.S.

Court of International Trade (the Court)

affirmed the Department of Commerce’s

(the Department) remand determination

of the final results of the antidumping

duty administrative review of Small

Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and

Alloy Steel Standard Line and Pressure

Pipes from Germany. As no further

appeals have been filed and there is

now a final and conclusive court

decision in this action, we are amending

our final results.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 18, 1998, the Department

published the final results of the

administrative review in small diameter

circular seamless carbon and alloy steel

standard line and pressure pipes from

Germany (63 FR 13217) (Final Results),

covering the period January 27, 1995

through July 31, 1996. On April 27,

1998, the Department published the

amended final results of the

administrative review in small diameter

circular seamless carbon and alloy steel

standard line and pressure pipes from

Germany (63 FR 20579) (Amended Final

Results).

Respondent Mannesmann challenged

the Department’s final results on three

issues: (1) the Department’s

interpretation of sections 773(f)(2) and

(3) of the Act; (2) the Department’s use

of adverse facts available to value

Mannesmann’s purchases of steel billets

from an affiliated supplier; and (3) the

use of adverse facts available to value

the amount of U.S. customs duties paid

by Mannesmann. In the Final Results,

the Department, pursuant to sections

773(f)(2) and (3) of the Act, used the

highest of the transfer price, cost of

production or market value to value the

billets purchased from an affiliated

supplier. The Department concluded

that because Mannesmann had not acted

to the best of its ability to comply with

the Department’s information requests,

the application of the higher market

value to value the billets purchased

from its affiliated supplier as adverse

facts available was warranted. The

Department determined adverse facts

available was warranted because of

Mannesmann’s lack of response to the

Department’s request for market price

information for any purchases of the

identical input from unaffiliated

suppliers, and the discovery at

verification that Mannesmann did make

such a purchase of an identical input

from both its affiliated supplier and an

unaffiliated supplier. The Department

utilized the purchase price of the

purchase discovered at verification as

market value and used this information

as facts available to determine market

value for the other types of billets

because there was no other market value

information on the record for the other

types of billets. In addition, the

Department found that the use of

adverse facts available was appropriate

for the final results. Therefore, the

Department applied this market value

adjustment to all purchases from

affiliated suppliers. To value the

customs duties Mannesmann paid on its

U.S. sales in the Final Results, the

Department used as adverse facts

available, the highest U.S. duty amounts

reported by Mannesmann for those

instances where it was unable to exactly

verify Mannesmann’s duty rates. The

Department applied adverse facts

available because it discovered at

verification that Mannesmann had

under-reported its U.S. duties paid on a

number of entries, and because

Mannesmann could not recreate or

explain the allocation methodologies it

used to derive its figures. Thus, for the

Final Results, the Department

determined a dumping margin of 22.12

percent for the period of review (POR),

based on adverse facts available. On

October 29, 1999, the court remanded

these final results. See

Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v.

United States, 77 F.Supp.2d 1302 (CIT

1999).

The court upheld the Department’s

interpretation of sections 773(f)(2) and

(3) of the Act as allowing the

Department to use the highest of the

transfer price, cost of production or

market price to value an input from an

affiliated supplier and affirmed the

Department’s practice. However, the

Court also found that the evidence cited

by the Department was insufficient to

justify the use of adverse facts available

to value Mannesmann’s billet purchases

from its affiliated suppliers. Similarly,

the Court also found that the record

evidence identified by the Department

did not support the use of adverse facts

available to value the U.S. duties paid

by Mannesmann. Therefore, the Court

ordered the Department to reevaluate its

use of adverse facts available and either

identify substantial evidence in support

of its conclusion that Mannesmann

failed to cooperate by not acting to the

best of its ability in providing

information about input purchases from

both affiliated and non-affiliated parties,

or otherwise apply non-adverse facts

available. The Court also ordered the

Department to identify other record

evidence to support the use of adverse

facts available to value the U.S. duties

paid by Mannesmann or otherwise use

non-adverse facts available. The

Department issued its remand

determination on January 27, 2000. See

Remand Determination:

Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v.

United States, Court No. 98–04–00886

(hereinafter ‘‘Remand Results’’ or RR).

In this remand determination, the

Department citing additional record

evidence, continues to calculate a

dumping margin based on adverse facts

available for the value of Mannesmann’s

purchases of steel billets from an

affiliated supplier. However, the

Department used non-adverse facts

available to value the customs duties

Mannesmann paid on its U.S. sales.

On October 5, 2000 the Court affirmed

the Department’s remand results,

upholding the use of adverse facts

available in valuing Mannesmann’s

billet purchases, and the application of

non-adverse facts available in

determining the value of U.S. duties

paid. See Mannesmannrohren-Werke

12466 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Notices

AG vs. United States, Slip Op. 00–126

(CIT, October 5, 2000). Pursuant to the

Court’s order, we have placed on the

record in this case the margin

calculation program using adverse facts

available for billet purchases and nonadverse facts available for duties paid by

Mannesmann.

Amendment to Final Results of Review

Because no further appeals have been

filed and there is now a final and

conclusive decision in the court

proceeding, effective as of the

publication date of this notice, we are

amending the Final Results, and

establishing the following revised

dumping margin:

SMALL DIAMETER CIRCULAR SEAMLESS

CARBON AND ALLOY STEEL STANDARD AND PRESSURE PIPE FROM

GERMANY (POR 1995–1996)

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Weightedaverage

margin

Mannesmann ............................ 20.08%

The ‘‘All Others Rate’’ was not

affected by the Remand Determination,

and remains at 57.72 percent. See Final

Results (FR 63 13217).

The Department will instruct the

Customs Service to assess these revised

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 751(a) of the

Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard

T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the

Assistance Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: February 16, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–4771 Filed 2–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of Amendment to

Previously Published Notice.

SUMMARY: The Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’),

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce, received an

application to amend an Export Trade

Certificate of Review (‘‘Certificate’’).

This notice amends a previous notice

published December 20, 2000 (65 FR

79803).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vanessa M. Bachman, Acting Director,

Office of Export Trading Company

Affairs, International Trade

Administration, (202) 482–5131. This is

not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce to issue Export

Trade Certificates of Review. An Export

Trade Certificate of Review protects the

holder and the members identified in

the Certificate from state and federal

government antitrust actions and from

private treble damage antitrust actions

for the export conduct specified in the

Certificate and carried out in

compliance with its terms and

conditions. Section 302(b) (1) of the

Export Trading Company Act of 1982

and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the

Secretary to publish a notice in the

Federal Register identifying the

applicant and summarizing its proposed

export conduct.

Request for Public Comments

Interested parties may submit written

comments relevant to the determination

whether an amended Certificate should

be issued. If the comments include any

privileged or confidential business

information, it must be clearly marked

and a nonconfidential version of the

comments (identified as such) should be

included. Any comments not marked

privileged or confidential business

information will be deemed to be

nonconfidential. An original and five (5)

copies, plus two (2) copies of the

nonconfidential version, should be

submitted no later than 20 days after the

date of this notice by email to

oetca@ita.doc.gov, or by mail to: Office

of Export Trading Company Affairs,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce, Room 1104,

Washington, D.C. 20230. Information

submitted by any person is exempt from

disclosure under the Freedom of

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

However, nonconfidential versions of

the comments will be made available to

the applicant if necessary for

determining whether or not to issue the

Certificate. Comments should refer to

this application as ‘‘Export Trade

Certificate of Review, application

number 88–4A012.’’

The National Tooling and Machining

Association (‘‘NTMA’’) original

Certificate was issued on October 18,

1988 (53 FR 43140, October 25, 1988),

and was last amended on May 5, 2000

(65 FR 30073, May 10, 2000).

Summary of the Application: Item 1

of the notice published December 20,

2000 (65 FR 79803) is amended to read:

(1) the attached list will constitute the

‘‘Members’’ of the Certificate within the

meaning of section 325.2(1) of the

Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)). Item 2) of

the notice published December 20, 2000

(65 FR 79803) is deleted due to the fact

that the attached list takes into account

such deletions.

Dated: February 15, 2001.

Vanessa M. Bachman,

Acting Director, Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs.

NTMA CERTIFICATE MEMBER LIST APPLICATION 88–4A012

A & A Industries, Inc ................................................................................ Peabody, MA

A & A Machine Company, Inc .................................................................. Southampton, PA

A & A Machine Shop, Inc ......................................................................... La Marque, TX

A & B Machine ......................................................................................... Van Nuys, CA

A & B Machine Shop ................................................................................ Rockford, IL

A & B Tool & Manufacturing Corp ........................................................... Toledo, OH

A & D Precision ........................................................................................ Fremont, CA

A & E Custom Manufacturing ................................................................... Kansas City, KS

A & E Machine Shop, Inc ......................................................................... Lone Star, TX

A & G Machine, Inc .................................................................................. Auburn, WA

A & S Tool & Die Company, Inc .............................................................. Kernersville, NC

A A Precisioneering, Inc ........................................................................... Meadville, PA

A B A Division .......................................................................................... Manchester, CT

A B C 0 Tool & Engineering ..................................................................... Phoenix, AZ

A B Heller, Inc .......................................................................................... Milford, MI