Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Notices 12461

steel pipe from the Republic of Korea

(see Notice of Antidumping Orders:

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of

Korea (‘‘Korea’’), Mexico, and Venezuela

and Amendment to Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Certain Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

from Korea (57 FR 49453, November 2,

1992)).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Suresh Maniam or Sibel Oyman, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–0176 and (202)

482–1174, respectively.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the ‘‘Act’’), are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s

(‘‘Department’’) regulations are to 19

CFR Part 351 (2000).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 5, 2001, a respondent in

this proceeding, Hyundai Pipe Co., Ltd.

(‘‘HDP’’) notified the Department that as

of February 1, 2001, its corporate name

would change to Hyundai Steel

Company (‘‘Hyundai Hysco’’). HDP

stated that the corporate structure

would not change and that all owners,

management, production facilities,

suppliers and customers will stay the

same. HDP provided documentation to

support this claim, consisting of an

official announcement and a press

article noting the name change. On

February 9, 2001, HDP submitted the

following supplementary information

documenting the name change: a public

announcement; minutes of the

shareholders’ meeting; a relevant

portion from its draft 2000 financial

statements; new business registration

certificates for the Seoul office, head

office/pipe production facility, and

cold-rolling mill; a list of identical preand post-name change organizational

charts and articles of association; a list

of identical pre- and post-name board of

directors; and a list of identical pre- and

post-name change suppliers and

customers. On February 15, 2001, HDP

further confirmed that its change in

name was not a result of a merger,

acquisition, or change in corporate

structure.

The information submitted by

Hyundai shows changed circumstances

sufficient to warrant a review.

Therefore, we are initiating a changed

circumstances administrative review

pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act

to determine whether entries naming

Hyundai Hysco as manufacturer or

exporter should receive the cash deposit

rate currently applied to HDP.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise subject to this

review is circular welded non-alloy

steel pipe and tube, of circular crosssection, not more than 406.4mm (16

inches) in outside diameter, regardless

of wall thickness, surface finish (black,

galvanized, or painted), or end finish

(plain end, beveled end, threaded, or

threaded and coupled). These pipes and

tubes are generally known as standard

pipes and tubes and are intended for the

low-pressure 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 also be

used for light load-bearing applications,

such as for fence tubing, and as

structural pipe tubing used for framing

and as support members for

reconstruction or load-bearing purposes

in the construction, shipbuilding,

trucking, farm equipment, and other

related industries. Unfinished conduit

pipe is also included in this order.

All carbon-steel pipes and tubes

within the physical description outlined

above are included within the scope of

this review except line pipe, oil-country

tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical

tubing, pipe and tube hollows for

redraws, finished scaffolding, and

finished conduit. In accordance with the

Department’s Final Negative

Determination of Scope Inquiry on

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the

Republic of Korea, Mexico, and

Venezuela (61 FR 11608, March 21,

1996), pipe certified to the API 5L linepipe specification and pipe certified to

both the API 5L line-pipe specifications

and the less-stringent ASTM A–53

standard-pipe specifications, which falls

within the physical parameters as

outlined above, and entered as line pipe

of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines

is outside of the scope of the

antidumping duty order.

Imports of these products are

currently classifiable under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’)

subheadings: 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.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

Service purposes, our written

description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Initiation of Changed Circumstances

Review

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the

Act, the Department will conduct a

changed circumstances review upon

receipt of information concerning, or a

request from an interested party of, an

antidumping duty order which shows

changed circumstances sufficient to

warrant a review of the order.

HDP has notified the Department that

its corporate name has changed and that

no changes have occurred with respect

to ownership, management, production

facilities, suppliers or customers. We

therefore find good cause to conduct a

changed circumstances review. See 19

CFR 351.216(c). Therefore, in

accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b) and

351.221(b)(1), we are initiating a

changed circumstances review based

upon the information contained in

HDP’s submissions.

The Department will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of preliminary

results of changed circumstances

antidumping duty administrative

review, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i),

which will set forth the Department’s

preliminary factual and legal

conclusions. The Department will issue

its final results of review in accordance

with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR

351.216(e).

This notice is in accordance with

section 751(b)(1) of the Act.

Dated: February 20, 2001.

Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, Group 1.

[FR Doc. 01–4772 Filed 2–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–001]

Potassium Permanganate From the

People’s Republic of China:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

12462 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Notices

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative review

of potassium permanganate from the

People’s Republic of China.

SUMMARY: In response to a timely

request for an administrative review

submitted by the respondent, Provincial

Chemicals Import & Export Corporation

(‘‘Guizhou’’), and its supplier of

potassium permanganate, the Zunyi

Chemical Factory (‘‘Zunyi’’), the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on potassium

permanganate from the People’s

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period

of review (‘‘POR’’) is January 1, 1999,

through December 31, 1999. The

Department has preliminarily

determined that the sale of subject

merchandise during the POR was made

below normal value (‘‘NV’’). If the

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’)

to assess antidumping duties on the

entry.

The Department invites interested

parties to comment on the preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Stolz or Howard Smith, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–4474 and (202)

482–5193, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended, (‘‘the Act’’) are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations at 19 CFR part 351

(April 1999).

Background

On January 31, 1984, the Department

published in the Federal Register (49

FR 3897) the antidumping duty order on

potassium permanganate from the PRC.

On January 13, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register (65

FR 2114) a notice of opportunity to

request administrative reviews of this

antidumping duty order. On January 14,

2000, one exporter and one producer of

potassium permanganate, Guizhou and

Zunyi, respectively, requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of Guizhou’s exports of the

subject merchandise. The Department

published a notice of initiation of this

review on February 28, 2000 (65 FR

10466).

On March 13, 2000, the Department

issued its antidumping questionnaire to

Guizhou. Guizhou responded to the

Department’s questionnaire during May

2000, and submitted responses to the

Department’s June and August, 2000

supplemental questionnaires during

July and August, 2000, respectively. On

August 1, 2000, the petitioner, Carus

Chemical Company (‘‘Carus’’ or ‘‘the

petitioner’’), submitted publicly

available information and comments for

consideration in valuing the factors of

production used in our NV calculations.

On August 31, 2000, the petitioner

requested that the Department rescind

the review because the sale under

review is not bona fide. For details

regarding bona fide sale issue and the

request to rescind the review, see the

‘‘Recision Request and Bona Fide Sale

Issue’’ section of this notice below. On

January 11, 2001, Guizhou submitted

publicly available information and

comments regarding factor values.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the

Act, the Department has determined

that it is not practicable to complete this

review within 245 days after the last day

of the anniversary month of the order,

and thus, has extended the time limit

for the preliminary results until January

30, 2001. See Potassium Permanganate

From the People’s Republic of China:

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 65 FR 54227,

(September 7, 2000).

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of potassium permanganate,

an inorganic chemical produced in freeflowing, technical, and pharmaceutical

grades. During the review period,

potassium permanganate was

classifiable under item 2841.60.0010 of

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(‘‘HTS’’). The HTS item number is

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

Rescission Request and Bona Fide Sale

Issue

The petitioner claims that the only

sale under review is not bona fide, and

thus, the review should be rescinded.

This claim is primarily based upon the

petitioner’s allegation that the sale

involved a fraudulent and illegal

shipping scheme. On November 3, 2000,

the Department requested that

interested parties comment on

discrepancies involving certain

shipping documents and submit

information regarding the shipment of

the subject merchandise to the United

States. The Department received parties’

submissions regarding the shipment

during November and December, 2000,

and January 2001. After an examination

of the record, we do not find sufficient

evidence indicating that the sale under

review is not a bona fide sale, and thus,

preliminarily, we are not rescinding this

administrative review. For a full

discussion of this issue, see the

memorandum: Bona Fide Sale and

Rescission of Review, dated January 30,

2001, the public version of which is on

file in the Central Records Unit, room

B–099 of the main Department of

Commerce building (‘‘CRU-Public

File’’).

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified sales and factor

information provided by Guizhou and

its supplier of potassium permanganate,

Zunyi, using standard verification

procedures, including on-site inspection

of the manufacturer’s facilities,

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

relevant source documentation as

exhibits. Our verification findings are

detailed in the report regarding the

verification of Guizhou and Zunyi dated

January 30, 2001, the public version of

which is on file in the CRU-Public File.

Separate Rates Determination

To establish whether a company

operating in a non-market economy

(‘‘NME’’) is sufficiently independent to

be entitled to a separate rate, the

Department analyzes each exporting

entity under the test established 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) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as

amplified by the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon

Carbide from the People’s Republic of

China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994)

(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). Under this test,

companies in a NME country are

entitled to separate, company-specific

margins when they can demonstrate an

absence of government control, both in

law and in fact, with respect to export

activities. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.

Evidence supporting, though not

requiring, a finding of de jure absence

of government control over export

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Notices 12463

1For each of the FOP, we were able to find POR

Indian import statistics only for the months

January, April, and May, 1999.

activities includes: (1) An absence of

restrictive stipulations associated with

the individual exporter’s business and

export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies. Id.

De facto absence of government control

over exports is based on four factors: (1)

Whether each exporter sets its own

export prices independent of the

government and without the approval of

a government authority; (2) whether

each exporter retains the proceeds from

its sales and makes independent

decisions regarding the disposition of

profits or financing of losses; (3)

whether each exporter has the authority

to negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; and (4) whether each

exporter has autonomy from the

government regarding the selection of

management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR

at 22587; see also Sparklers 56 FR at

20589.

It is the Department’s policy to

evaluate separate rates questionnaire

responses each time a respondent makes

a separate rates claim, regardless of any

separate rate the respondent received in

the past. See Manganese Metal From the

People’s Republic of China, Final

Results and Partial Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 63 FR 12441 (March 13, 1998).

In the instant review, Guizhou

submitted complete responses to the

separate rates section of the

Department’s questionnaire. The

evidence submitted in this review by

Guizhou includes government laws and

regulations on corporate ownership,

business licences, and narrative

information regarding the company’s

operations and selection of

management. This evidence is

consistent with the Department’s

findings in previous reviews and

supports a finding that control of

companies in the PRC has been

decentralized and that the respondent

company’s operations are, in fact,

autonomous from the PRC government.

Therefore, we preliminarily find that

Guizhou is entitled to a separate rate.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether the

respondent’s sale of subject

merchandise was made at less than fair

value, we compared the export price to

the normal value, as described in the

Export Price and Normal Value sections

of this notice, below.

Export Price

In accordance with section 772(a) of

the Act, the Department calculated an

export price (‘‘EP’’) for the sale to the

United States because the subject

merchandise was sold directly to an

unaffiliated customer in the United

States prior to importation and

constructed export price methodology

was not otherwise indicated. We made

deductions from the sales price for

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage

and handling, and domestic inland

insurance. Each of these services was

provided by a NME vendor, and thus,

we based the deductions for these

movement charges on surrogate values.

We valued foreign brokerage and

handling using Indian values that were

reported in the public version of the

questionnaire response placed on the

record in Certain Stainless Steel Wire

Rod from India; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative and

New Shipper Review, 63 FR 48184

(September 9, 1998) (‘‘India Wire Rod’’).

We valued domestic inland insurance

using the Department’s recently revised

Index of Factor Values for Use in

Antidumping Duty Investigations

Involving Products from the PRC

(available on the Department’s website).

We identify the source used to value

foreign inland freight in the Normal

Value section of this notice, below. We

accounted for inflation or deflation

between the time period that the values

for movement charges were in effect and

the POR, as described below in the

Normal Value section of this notice.

Normal Value

For exports from NME countries,

section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides

that the Department shall determine NV

using a factors of production (‘‘FOP’’)

methodology if: (1) the subject

merchandise is exported from an NME

country, and (2) available information

does not permit the calculation of NV

using home-market prices, third-country

prices, or constructed value under

section 773(a) of the Act. Section

351.408 of the Department’s regulations

sets forth the methodology used by the

Department to calculate the NV of

merchandise exported from NME

countries. In every case conducted by

the Department involving the PRC, the

PRC has been treated as an NME. Since

none of the parties to this proceeding

contested such treatment, we calculated

NV in accordance with section 773(c)(3)

and (4) of the Act and section 351.408(c)

of the Department’s regulations.

In accordance with section 773(c)(3)

of the Act, the FOP utilized in

producing potassium permanganate

include, but are not limited to: (1) hours

of labor required; (2) quantities of raw

materials employed; (3) amounts of

energy and other utilities consumed;

and (4) representative capital costs,

including depreciation. In accordance

with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the

Department valued the FOP, to the

extent possible, using the costs of the

FOP in a market economy that is (1) at

a level of economic development

comparable to the PRC, and (2) a

significant producer of comparable

merchandise. We determined that India

is comparable to the PRC in terms of per

capita gross national product, the

growth rate in per capita income, and

the national distribution of labor.

Furthermore, India is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise.

See Memorandum From Jeff May,

Director, Office of Policy, to Holly Kuga,

Senior Office Director, AD/CVD

Enforcement, dated March 20, 2000,

which is on file in the CRU-Public File.

In accordance with section 773(c)(1)

of the Act, for purposes of calculating

NV, we attempted to value the FOP

using surrogate values that were in

effect during the POR. However, when

we were unable to obtain surrogate

values in effect during the POR, we

adjusted the values, as appropriate, to

account for inflation or deflation

between the effective period and the

POR. We calculated the inflation or

deflation adjustments for all factor

values, except labor, using the

wholesale price indices (‘‘WPI’’) for

India as published in the International

Monetary Fund’s (‘‘IMF’’) publication,

International Financial Statistics. We

valued the FOP as follows:

(1) We valued the direct materials,

potassium hydroxide and manganese

dioxide used to produce potassium

permanganate using price quotes from

1999 issues of Chemical Weekly, an

Indian publication that lists chemical

prices. We valued the direct material

limestone using the rupee per metric ton

or rupee per kilogram value of imports

that entered India during the months of

January, April, and May 1999, as

published in the Monthly Statistics of

the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II—

Imports (‘‘Indian Import Statistics’’).1

(2) We valued the material, caustic

soda, used to treat (soften) water, using

price quotes from 1999 issues of

Chemical Weekly. We valued the

materials lime and alum, used to treat

(soften) water, using the rupee per

metric ton or rupee per kilogram value

of imports that entered India during the

months of April 1998 through January

1999 for alum, and January, April, and

May 1999 for lime, as published in

Indian Import Statistics. We adjusted

12464 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Notices

the value for alum to account for

inflation. These materials were not

reported in respondent’s submission but

were identified at verification (see

Verification Report). 

(3) We valued coal using the rupee

per metric ton or rupee per kilogram

value of imports that entered India

during the months of January, April,

and May 1999, as published in Indian

Import Statistics. 

(4) We valued electricity using the

1997 Indian electricity prices for

industrial use as reported by the

International Energy Agency (‘‘IEA’’), as

adjusted for inflation. This rate is

available in the IEA publication Energy,

Prices and Taxes, 2nd Quarter 2000. 

(5) We valued labor using a

regression-based wage rate, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

This rate is identified on the Import

Administration’s web site. See http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages. 

(6) We derived ratios for factory

overhead, selling, general and

administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses, and

profit using information reported for

1992–1993 in the Reserve Bank of India

Bulletin of January 1997. From this

information, we were able to calculate

factory overhead as a percentage of

direct materials, labor, and energy

expenses; SG&A expenses as a

percentage of the total cost of

manufacturing; and profit as a

percentage of the sum of the total cost

of manufacturing and SG&A expenses.

(7) We valued packing materials,

including polyethylene plastic bags,

nylon wires, and iron drums using the

rupee per metric ton or rupee per

kilogram value of imports that entered

India during the months of January,

April, and May 1999 for polyethylene

plastic bags and nylon wires, and during

the months of April 1998 through March

1999 for iron drums, as published in

Indian Import Statistics. We adjusted

the value for iron drums to account for

inflation.

(8) We used the following sources to

value truck and rail freight services

incurred to transport the finished

product to the port and direct materials,

packing materials, and coal from the

suppliers of the inputs to Zunyi:

Truck Freight: We valued truck freight

services using the 1999 rate quotes

reported by Indian freight companies.

See Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk

Aspirin From the People’s Republic of

China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000).

Rail Freight: We valued rail freight

services using the April 1995 rates

published by the Indian Railway

Conference Association, as adjusted for

inflation. For further discussion of the

surrogate values used in this review, see

Memorandum From Timothy Finn

Regarding Surrogate Values Used for the

Preliminary Results of the

Administrative Review of Potassium

Permanganate from the People’s

Republic of China, (January 30, 2001),

which is on file in the CRU-Public File.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following dumping margins exist for the

period January 1, 1999 through

December 31, 1999:

Exporter/Manufacturer Margin

(percent)

Guizhou Provincial Chemicals

Import & Export Corporation ... 132.11

PRC Wide-Rate .......................... 128.54

The Department will disclose to

parties to this proceeding the

calculations performed in reaching the

preliminary results within five days of

the date of publication of the results. An

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of publication of the

preliminary results. See 19 CFR

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the

publication of this notice, or the first

workday thereafter. Interested parties

may submit written comments (case

briefs) within 30 days of the date of

publication of this notice, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal

comments (rebuttal briefs), which must

be limited to issues raised in the case

briefs, may be filed not later than 37

days after the date of publication of this

notice. Parties who submit arguments

are requested to submit with the

argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2)

a brief summary of the argument and (3)

a table of authorities. Further, the

Department requests that parties

submitting written comments provide

the Department with a diskette

containing the public version of those

comments. The Department will publish

a notice of the final results of this

administrative review, including the

results of our analysis of the issues

raised by the parties in their comments,

within 120 days of publication of the

preliminary results.

The final results of this review shall

be the basis for the assessment of

antidumping duties on the entry of

merchandise covered by this review and

for future deposits of estimated duties.

Duty Assessment Rate

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we

have an calculated importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rate based on

the ratio of the total amount of the

dumping margin calculated for the

examined sale to the total entered value

of the sale. In order to estimate the

entered value, we subtracted

international movement expenses from

the gross sales value. In accordance with

19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct

Customs to liquidate without regard to

antidumping duties any entries for

which the assessment rate is de

minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of the

final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of potassium

permanganate from the PRC entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of this notice, as provided for by

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

deposit rate for the reviewed company

named above will be the rate established

for that company in the final results of

this administrative review; (2) for any

previously reviewed PRC or non-PRC

exporter with a separate rate not

covered in this review, the cash deposit

rate will be the company-specific rate

established for the most recent period;

(3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash

deposit rates will be the PRC-wide rates

established in the final results of this

review; and (4) the cash deposit rates for

non-PRC exporters of subject

merchandise from the PRC will be the

rates applicable to the PRC supplier of

that exporter. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under section 351.402(f)

of the Department’s regulations 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.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the

Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard

T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the

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