Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices 13893

Dated: February 28, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–5621 Filed 3–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–506]

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Oil Country Tubular Goods

From Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

the respondent, Atlas Tube, Inc. (Atlas),

the Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on oil country

tubular goods (OCTG) from Canada.

This review covers one manufacturer/

exporter, Atlas, and the period June 1,

1999 through December 31, 1999. The

period of review (POR) specified by the

Department’s opportunity to request

administrative review was June 1, 1999

through May 31, 2000. See Notice of

Opportunity to Request Administrative

Review of Antidumping or

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or

Suspended Investigation 65 FR 38242

(June 20, 2000). However, the

Department revoked this antidumping

duty order effective January 1, 2000;

therefore, this administrative review

only covers the period June 1, 1999

through December 31, 1999. See Notice

of Revocation of Antidumping Duty

Orders: Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe and Tube from Venezuela;

Small Diameter Standard and

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from

Singapore; and Oil Country Tubular

Goods from Canada and Taiwan 65 FR

50954 (August 22, 2000).

We have preliminarily determined the

dumping margin for Atlas to be 6.56

percent.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nithya Nagarajan or Michele Mire,

Office 4, Group II, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–5253 or (202) 482–4711

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

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 to the

current regulations at 19 CFR part 351

(2000).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on OCTG from

Canada on June 16, 1986 (51 FR 21782)

and an amended order on August 19,

1986 (51 FR 29579). On June 20, 2000,

the Department published an

Opportunity to Request Administrative

Review (65 FR 38242). On July 9, 2000,

Atlas Tube, Inc. requested the

Department to initiate an administrative

review pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of

the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). We

initiated this administrative review on

July 31, 2000 (65 FR 46687) for the

period June 1, 1999, through May 31,

2000. On August 22, 2000, the

Department revoked the antidumping

duty order effective January 1, 2000 (65

FR 50954). Due to the revocation of the

antidumping duty order, we analyzed

sales of the subject merchandise for the

period June 1, 1999, through December

31, 1999, rather than the entire POR

specified by the Department’s

opportunity to request administrative

review.

The Department issued its

questionnaire on August 28, 2000, and

received Atlas’ responses to Sections A,

B, C, and D (corporate structure, home

market sales, U.S. sales, and cost of

production/constructed value,

respectively) on October 30, 2000, and

supplemental responses on December

21, 2000.

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a)(1) of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

include shipments of OCTG from

Canada. This includes American

Petroleum Institute (API) specification

OCTG and all other pipe with the

following characteristics except entries

which the Department determined

through its end-use certification

procedure were not used in OCTG

applications: Length of at least 16 feet;

outside diameter of standard sizes

published in the API or proprietary

specifications for OCTG with tolerances

of plus 1⁄8 inch for diameters less than

or equal to 85⁄8 inches and plus 1⁄4 inch

for diameters greater than 85⁄8 inches,

minimum wall thickness as identified

for a given outer diameter as published

in the API or proprietary specifications

for OCTG; a minimum of 40,000 PSI

yield strength and a minimum 60,000

PSI tensile strength; and if with seams,

must be electric resistance welded.

Furthermore, imports covered by this

review include OCTG with nonstandard size wall thickness greater than

the minimum identified for a given

outer diameter as published in the API

or proprietary specifications for OCTG,

with surface scabs or slivers, irregularly

cut ends, ID or OD weld flash, or open

seams; OCTG may be bent, flattened or

oval, and may lack certification because

the pipe has not been mechanically

tested or has failed those tests. This

merchandise is currently classifiable

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules

(HTS) item numbers 7304.20, 7305.20,

and 7306.20. The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and U.S.

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

United States Price

Atlas reported all United States sales

of subject merchandise as export price

(EP) transactions sold to unaffiliated

U.S. customers prior to importation.

We calculated EP, in accordance with

section 772(a) of the Act, because the

merchandise was sold by the

manufacturer/exporter Atlas in the

exporting country to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation and because

evidence on the record did not

otherwise warrant constructed export

price (CEP) methodology. We based EP

on the delivered price to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. We

adjusted the starting price by the

amount Atlas reported for billing

adjustments and made deductions from

the starting price for discounts. We also

made deductions for movement

expenses in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included

foreign inland freight, U.S. inland

freight, and U.S. brokerage and handling

charges.

Normal Value

After testing (1) home market viability

and (2) whether home market sales were

made at below-cost prices, we

calculated normal value (NV) as noted

in the ‘‘Price-to-Price Comparisons’’

section of this notice.

13894 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices

1. Home Market Viability

In order to determine whether there is

a sufficient volume of sales in the home

market to serve as a viable basis for

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product is equal to or

greater than five percent of the aggregate

volume of U.S. sales), we compared

Atlas’ volume of home market sales of

the foreign like product to the volume

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise,

in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of

the Act. Because Atlas’ aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product was greater than

five percent of its aggregate volume of

U.S. sales for the subject merchandise,

we determined that the home market

was viable for Atlas.

2. Cost of Production Analysis

Section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act

provides that there are reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales

of the foreign like product were made at

prices that are less than the cost of

production (COP) of the product if we

disregarded some or all of a specific

exporter’s sales below COP in the last

completed administrative review of that

exporter. In the last administrative

review of this order which covered the

period December 1, 1998, through May

31, 1999, we found sales below COP for

Atlas which were disregarded. See

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review 65 FR 36407, 36409 (June 8,

2000). As a result, the respondent

provided COP information in response

to Section D of the Department’s

antidumping duty questionnaire, on

which we based our COP analysis as

described below.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated COP based on

the sum of Atlas’ cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus an amount for home market selling,

general and administrative expenses

(SG&A), including interest expenses,

and packing costs.

B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

We compared the weighted-average

COP figures to home market sales of the

foreign like product as required under

section 773(b) of the Act, in order to

determine whether these sales had been

made at prices below COP. In

determining whether to disregard home

market sales made at prices less than the

COP, we examined whether (1) within

an extended period of time, such sales

were made in substantial quantities, and

(2) such sales were made at prices

which permitted the recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to the home market

prices, less any applicable movement

charges and rebates.

C. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of respondent’s sales of

a given product during the POR were at

prices less than the COP, we determined

such sales to be made in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ within an extended period

of time in accordance with section

773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In the instant

case, we compared Atlas’ home market

prices to weighted-average COPs for the

POR, and therefore determined that

below-cost sales were not made at prices

which would permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B)

of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded

such below-cost sales.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or

CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of

the starting-price sales in the

comparison market or, when NV is

based on constructed value (CV), that of

the sales from which we derive SG&A

expenses and profit. With respect to

U.S. price for EP transactions, the LOT

is also the level of the starting-price

sale, which is usually from the exporter

to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than the U.S. sales, we

examined stages in the marketing

process and selling functions along the

chain of distribution between the

producer and the unaffiliated customer.

If the comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and home market sales at the LOT of the

export transaction, we make a LOT

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of

the Act. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

Atlas reported one customer category

and one channel of distribution (i.e.,

sales to unaffiliated distributors) for its

home market sales. For its EP sales,

Atlas also reported one customer

category and one channel of distribution

(i.e., direct sales to unaffiliated

distributors). Atlas claimed in its

response that its EP sales were made at

the same LOT as home market sales to

unaffiliated distributors. For this reason,

Atlas has not asked for a LOT

adjustment to NV for comparison to its

EP sales.

In determining whether separate

LOTs actually existed in the home

market and U.S. market, we examined

whether Atlas’ sales involved different

marketing stages (or their equivalent)

based on the channel of distribution,

customer categories and selling

functions. Atlas reported that its selling

functions for home market sales are

arranging for freight, warehousing, and

warranty service; however, we noted

that Atlas did not report any warehouse

or warranty expenses for home market

sales during the POR. After reviewing

the record evidence for this current

review, we agree with Atlas that its

home market sales comprise a single

LOT.

In analyzing Atlas’ selling activities

for its EP sales, we noted that the sales

generally involved the same selling

functions associated with the home

market LOT described above. Atlas

reported that these selling activities

included arranging for freight,

warehousing, and warranty services;

however, Atlas reported that it did not

incur any warehouse or warranty

expenses for U.S. market sales during

the POR. Based upon the record

evidence for this current review, we

have determined that there is one LOT

for all EP sales and that it is the same

LOT as in the home market. Therefore,

because we find that the U.S. sales and

home market sales are at the same LOT,

we determine that a LOT adjustment

under section 773(a)(7)(A) is not

warranted.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

We calculated NV based on delivered

prices to unaffiliated customers. The NV

price was reported on a Goods and

Services Tax-exclusive basis. We

adjusted the starting price by the

amount Atlas reported for billing

adjustments. We made deductions from

the starting price for rebates, inland

freight, and inland freight insurance. We

made adjustments for differences in

merchandise in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We made

further adjustments, under section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, for

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices 13895

differences in circumstances of sale for

imputed credit expenses. Finally, we

deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs in

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)

and (B) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the

Act, we made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that a 6.56

percent dumping margin exists for Atlas

for the period June 1, 1999 through

December 31, 1999.

The Department will disclose the

calculations we performed within five

days of the date of publication of this

notice to the parties of this proceeding

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

An interested party may request a

hearing within thirty days of

publication of these preliminary results.

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 44 days after the

date of publication, or the first working

day thereafter. Interested parties may

submit case briefs and/or written

comments no later than 30 days after the

date of publication of these preliminary

results of review. Rebuttal briefs and

rebuttals to written comments, limited

to issues raised in such briefs or

comments, may be filed no later than 37

days after the date of publication. The

Department will issue the final results

of this administrative review, which

will include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such comments,

within 120 days of publication of these

preliminary results. Interested parties

are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties who submit

argument in this proceeding are

requested to submit with the argument:

(1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a

brief summary of the argument. Further,

we would appreciate it if parties

submitting written comments also

provide the Department with an

additional copy of the public version of

those comments on diskette.

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the U.S. Customs

Service (Customs) shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. There was only one importer

during the POR for merchandise sold by

Atlas. We have calculated an importerspecific duty assessment rate based on

the ratio of the total amount of

antidumping duties calculated for the

examined sales to the total entered

value of examined sales. Atlas reported

entered value by subtracting discounts,

freight, and brokerage and handling

costs from the reported U.S. price.

Where the importer-specific rate is

above de minimis, we will instruct

Customs to assess duties on that

importer’s entries of subject

merchandise. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

Customs.

Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the

Act, on August 22, 2000, the

Department revoked the antidumping

duty order on OCTG from Canada,

effective January 1, 2000 (65 FR 50954).

Therefore, we instructed Customs to

liquidate all entries of subject

merchandise made on or after January 1,

2000, without regard to antidumping

duties. Therefore, we will not issue cash

deposit instructions to Customs based

on the results of this review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f) 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 notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1). Effective January

20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling

the duties of Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

Dated: February 28, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–5628 Filed 3–7–01; 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: Initiation

of Antidumping New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping New Shipper Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) has received a

request from Groupstars Chemical Co.

Ltd. (‘‘Shandong’’) (‘‘Groupstars’’) to

conduct a new shipper review of the

antidumping duty order on potassium

permanganate from the People’s

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d) of

the Department’s regulations, we are

initiating this new shipper review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 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 or (202) 482–

5193 respectively.

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. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, codified at 19 CFR

part 351 (2000).

Background

On January 30, 2001 the Department

received a request, in accordance with

section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper

review of the antidumping duty order

on potassium permanganate.

On February 7, 2001 the Department

received comments from Carus

Chemical Company (‘‘petitioner’’) in

response to Groupstars’ request for a

new shipper review. Petitioner argued

that the Department should reject

Groupstars’ request based on errors in

Groupstars’ certifications and alleged

that Groupstars is affiliated with a

company that exported potassium

permanganate to the United States

during the period of investigation

(‘‘POI’’). On February 20, 2001 the

Department sent a letter to Groupstars

requesting that it clarify inconsistencies

with respect to, among other things, its

certifications. On February 22, 2001,

Groupstars responded to the

Department’s letter by clarifying and

correcting these inconsistencies. Also

on February 22, 2001, petitioner

objected to the Department providing

Groupstars with an opportunity to

correct its request for review and

restated its argument that respondent’s

request for review is deficient and thus,

a review should not be initiated. On

February 27, 2001, Groupstars clarified

that it was requesting the review on

behalf of Groupstars Chemical Co., Ltd.