11266 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Dong Won Metal Co., Ltd ............. 14.14

Dae-Lim Trading Co., Ltd ............. 1.69

Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd .............. 31.23

Ssang Yong Ind. Co., Ltd ............. 31.23

Chefline Corporation ..................... 31.23

B.Y Enterprise, Ltd ....................... 31.23

Clad Co., Ltd ................................ 31.23

Sae Skwang Aluminum Co., Ltd .. 31.23

East One Co., Ltd ......................... 31.23

East West Trading Korea, Ltd ...... 31.23

Bae Chin Metal Ind. Co ................ 31.23

Han Il Stainless Steel Ind. Co.,

Ltd ............................................. 31.23

Il Shin Co., Ltd .............................. 31.23

Kyung-Dong Industrial Co., Ltd .... 31.23

Poong Kang Ind. Co., Ltd ............. 31.23

Namyang Kitchen Flower Co., Ltd 31.23

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the

Department will disclose to parties to

the proceeding any calculations

performed in connection with these

preliminary results within 5 days of the

date of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Parties who submit

arguments in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each

argument: (1) A statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. All case briefs must be

submitted within 30 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, which are limited to issues raised

in the case briefs, may be filed not later

than seven days after the case briefs are

filed. Further, we would appreciate it if

parties submitting written comments

would provide the Department with an

additional copy of the public version of

any such comments on diskette. A

hearing, if requested, will be held two

days after the date the rebuttal briefs are

filed or the first business day thereafter.

The Department will publish a notice

of the final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of the issues raised in any

written comments, within 120 days

from the publication of these

preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs. The

final results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the determination and for

future deposits of estimated duties. We

have calculated importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rates based on

the ratio of the total amount of dumping

margins calculated for the examined

sales to the entered value of sales used

to calculate those duties. We will direct

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.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of top-of-stove stainless steel cooking

ware from Korea entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after publication date of the final results

of these administrative reviews, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for the

reviewed companies will be the rate

established in the final results of this

administrative review, except if the rate

is less than 0.5 percent ad valorem and,

therefore, de minimis, no cash deposit

will be required; (2) for exporters not

covered in this review, but covered in

the original LTFV investigation or a

previous review, the cash deposit rate

will continue to be the companyspecific rate published in the most

recent period; (3) if the exporter is not

a firm covered in this review, a previous

review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous reviews

or the LTFV investigation, the cash

deposit rate will be 8.10 percent, the

‘‘all-others’’ rate established in the

LTFV investigation. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 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.

This administrative review and this

notice are 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

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: January 30, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement II.

[FR Doc. 01–4537 Filed 2–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–857, A–201–828]

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping

Duty Investigations: Welded Large

Diameter Line Pipes From Mexico and

Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Initiation of antidumping duty

investigations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick

Johnson (Mexico) or Nancy Decker

(Japan) at (202) 482–3818 and (202)

482–0196, respectively; Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (2000).

The Petitions

On January 10, 2001, the Department

of Commerce (the Department) received

petitions filed in proper form by the

following parties: Berg Steel Pipe Corp.,

American Steel Pipe Division of

American Cast Iron Pipe Company, and

Stupp Corporation (collectively

‘‘petitioners’’). Additionally, one other

domestic producer, although a nonpetitioner, issued a statement

supporting the petition. The Department

received information from the

petitioners supplementing the petition

on January 22, January 24, January 26,

and January 29, 2001.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioners allege that

imports of welded large diameter line

pipes (hereafter referred to as LDLP)

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11267

1See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass Therefore from Japan: Final

Determination; Rescission of Investigation and

Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–

81 (July 16, 1991).

from Mexico and Japan are being, or are

likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value within the meaning

of section 731 of the Act, and that such

imports are materially injuring an

industry in the United States.

The Department finds that the

petitioners filed these petitions on

behalf of the domestic industry because

they are interested parties as defined in

section 771(9)(C) of the Act and have

demonstrated sufficient industry

support with respect to each of the

antidumping investigations that they are

requesting the Department to initiate

(see the Determination of Industry

Support for the Petitions section below).

Scope of Investigations

The product covered by this

investigation is welded carbon and alloy

line pipe, of circular cross section and

with an outside diameter greater than 16

inches in diameter, whether or not

stencilled. This product is normally

produced according to American

Petroleum Institute (API) specifications,

including Grades A25, A, B, and X

grades ranging from X42 to X80, but can

also be produced to other specifications.

The product currently is classified

under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTSUS) item numbers 7305.11.10.30,

7305.11.10.60, 7305.11.50.00,

7305.12.10.30, 7305.12.10.60,

7305.12.50.00, 7305.19.10.30.

7305.19.10.60, and 7305.19.50.00.

Although the HTSUS item numbers are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the

scope is dispositive. Specifically not

included within the scope of this

investigation is American Water Works

Association (AWWA) specification

water and sewage pipe.

As discussed in the preamble to the

Department’s regulations (62 FR 27323),

we are setting aside a period for parties

to raise issues regarding product

coverage. The Department encourages

all parties to submit such comments by

February 20, 2001. Comments should be

addressed to Import Administration’s

Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230. The period of

scope consultations is intended to

provide the Department with ample

opportunity to consider all comments

and consult with parties prior to the

issuance of the preliminary

determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petitions

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, to

determine whether the petition has the

requisite industry support, the statute

directs the Department to look to

producers and workers who produce the

domestic like product. The International

Trade Commission (ITC), which is

responsible for determining whether

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been

injured, must also determine what

constitutes a domestic like product in

order to define the industry. While both

the Department and the ITC must apply

the same statutory definition regarding

the domestic like product (section

771(10) of the Act), they do so for

different purposes and pursuant to

separate and distinct authority. In

addition, the Department’s

determination is subject to limitations of

time and information. Although this

may result in different definitions of the

like product, such differences do not

render the decision of either agency

contrary to the law.1

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the

domestic like product as ‘‘a product

which is like, or in the absence of like,

most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the

reference point from which the

domestic like product analysis begins is

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to

be investigated, which normally will be

the scope as defined in the petition.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)

of the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) At least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product; and (2) more

than 50 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition. Finally, section 732(c)(4)(D) of

the Act provides that if the petition does

not establish support of domestic

producers or workers accounting for

more than 50 percent of the total

production of the domestic like product,

the administering agency shall: (i) Poll

the industry or rely on other

information in order to determine if

there is support for the petition as

required by subparagraph (A), or (ii)

determine industry support using a

statistically valid sampling method.

For Mexico and Japan, the petitioners

established industry support

representing over 50 percent of total

production of the domestic like product.

Therefore, the domestic producers or

workers who support the petition

account for at least 25 percent of the

total production of the domestic like

product, and the requirements of section

732(c)(4)(A)(i) are met. Furthermore,

because the Department received no

opposition to the petition, the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for more than 50

percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for or opposition to the petition.

Thus, the requirements of section

732(c)(4)(A)(ii) are also met.

Accordingly, the Department

determines that the petitions were filed

on behalf of the domestic industry

within the meaning of section 732(b)(1)

of the Act. See Industry Support

Attachment to the Initiation Checklist.

Mexico

Normal Value

The Mexican producers named in the

petition are Procarsa SA de CV,

Productora Mexicana de Tuberia SA de

SV, Tubacero SA, Tuberia Laguna SA de

CV, and Tubesa SA de CV. In order to

calculate normal value (NV), the

petitioners provided an affidavit and

supporting documentation listing home

market price quotes from one Mexican

producer for merchandise which falls

within the scope of the petition. These

quotes were obtained by a foreign

market researcher during the period of

investigation. Based on the terms of the

price quotes, petitioners made no

adjustments to normal value.

Export Price

The petitioners based export price

(EP) on average unit value (AUV) data

gathered from IM–145 import statistics.

Using the month of September 2000,

they compared the one HTSUS ten-digit

category which corresponds to the

products described in the calculation of

NV. Petitioners maintain that this

methodology is appropriate because the

NV was based on price quotes which

would be most contemporaneous with

September entries. For the purposes of

initiation, the Department has based EP

on the weighted-average AUVs for the

HTSUS category corresponding to the

HTSUS category used as the basis for

NV using all available data for the

calendar year 2000 (i.e., January through

November). This decision is consistent

with Department practice in other cases

in which import statistics were used as

11268 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

the basis for EP. See, e.g., Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products From Argentina, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands,

the People’s Republic of China (the

PRC), Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine, et. al., 65 FR

77568, 77571 (December 12, 2000).

Petitioners then deducted an amount

for foreign inland freight, which was a

simple average of the separate freight

quotes from a Mexican producer, to

arrive at a net EP. However, for the

purposes of initiation, the Department

has adjusted petitioners’ foreign inland

freight calculation. Specifically, we

have adjusted for the difference in

distances between: (1) The rate supplied

by petitioners; and (2) the distance

between the Mexican producer from

which the rates were obtained and the

presumed ports of export for the

merchandise, based on the actual U.S.

ports of entry. See Attachment B to the

Initiation Checklist.

Based upon the comparison of EP to

NV, the petitioners’ estimated dumping

margin, as adjusted by the Department,

is 49.86 percent.

Japan

Normal Value

Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b)

and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners

based NV for sales in Japan on CV

because they could not obtain

corresponding home market prices. The

petitioners calculated CV by using

publicly available cost information from

a Japanese producer, information from a

U.S. surrogate, and other sources. The

amount calculated for CV consisted of

COM and SG&A expenses. Consistent

with 773(e)(2) of the Act, the petitioners

added to CV an amount for profit which

was based upon a Japanese producer’s

financial statements.

Export Price

The petitioners were unable to obtain

specific sales or offers for sale of subject

merchandise in the United States.

Therefore, the petitioners based EP on

the average unit values (‘‘AUV’’) for one

ten-digit category of the HTSUS

accounting for approximately 40 percent

of in-scope imports for consumption

from Japan. The petitioners calculated

the import AUV using the reported

quantity and customs value for imports

as recorded in the U.S. Census Bureau’s

official IM–145 import statistics. In their

calculation of estimated dumping

margins, the petitioners based EP on

import statistics covering the first three

quarters of 2000. For the purposes of

initiation, the Department has based EP

on the weighted-average AUVs for the

HTSUS category corresponding to the

HTSUS category used as the basis for

NV using all available data for the

calendar year 2000 (i.e., January through

November). This decision is consistent

with Department practice in other cases

in which import statistics were used as

the basis for EP. See, e.g., Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products From Argentina, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands,

the People’s Republic of China (the

PRC), Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine, et. al., 65 FR

77568, 77571 (December 12, 2000). We

note that customs import value as

defined by Technical Documentation for

US Exports and Imports of Merchandise

on CD-ROM excludes U.S. import

duties, freight, insurance and other

charges incurred in bringing the

merchandise to the United States.

Based upon the comparison of EP to

CV, the petitioners calculated an

estimated dumping margin of 30.80

percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of LDLP from Mexico and

Japan are being, or are likely to be, sold

at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petitions allege that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, or is

threatened with material injury, by

reason of the individual and cumulated

imports of the subject merchandise sold

at less than NV. The petitioners contend

that the industry’s injured condition is

evident in the significant increases in

imports of LDLP from Mexico and

Japan, a shrinking portion of market

share, and declining volumes in

production, shipment, and capacity

utilization. The allegations of injury and

causation are supported by relevant

evidence including U.S. Customs import

data, lost sales, and pricing information.

We have assessed the allegations and

supporting evidence regarding material

injury and causation, and have

determined that these allegations are

properly supported by accurate and

adequate evidence and meet the

statutory requirements for initiation (see

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II Re:

Material Injury).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

Based upon our examination of the

petitions on LDLP, and the petitioners’

responses to our supplemental

questionnaire clarifying the petitions,

we have found that they meet the

requirements of section 732 of the Act.

Therefore, we are initiating

antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of LDLP

from Mexico and Japan are being, or are

likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value. Unless this deadline

is extended, we will make our

preliminary determinations no later

than 140 days after the date of this

initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of each petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

governments of Mexico and Japan. We

will attempt to provide a copy of the

public version of each petition to each

exporter named in the petition, as

appropriate.

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiations, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine, no later than

February 24, 2001, whether there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

LDLP from Mexico and Japan are

causing material injury, or threatening

to cause material injury, to a U.S.

industry. A negative ITC determination

for any country will result in the

investigation being terminated with

respect to that country; otherwise, these

investigations will proceed according to

statutory and regulatory time limits.

This notice is issued and published

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T.

Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: January 30, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement II.

[FR Doc. 01–4541 Filed 2–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P